Water Fuel

imported post

Back out the "%C2%A0" after .html....not sure why the added characters are there....... If you had actually taken the time to READ, you would have understood that Mr. Meyers system CREATED the hydrogen onboard as he drove, "on the go", as it were. His system converted water into fuel AS IT RAN....it was NOT STORED. 100 mpg using WATER.

Click to expand...

I did get to that page, and I am still not convinced what he did was anything special. Why hasn't it been re-created? The scientific method says that for a fact to be proven, it must be reproducible. I can show you a gold brick and say I crapped it out, but unless I can do it again, you are going to call me a liar.

Good question....maybe read the patents? There is a great deal of his research/patents available. The bigger problem is understanding the technology with our limited intelect.

Click to expand...

See the above for scientific method. Unless his stuff can be re-created, I have to call BS.

I challenge you to PROVE that he "made up" anything. Transmitting electricity is a COMMON occurance...ever hear of microwaves?, radio?, radar? True, electricity can't be transmitted at the frequency that we commonly use (60hz) but Tesla WAS transmitting electricity at extremely HF ranges and made several PUBLIC displays while doing so.

Click to expand...

Look up Tessla's Death Ray, hor his machine capable of demolishing a building, or try to prove his electric car operated the way he said it did. When people doubted his tiny "power source" could power a car, he got pissed and took all his research away. Why would he do that? Either he was an ass, or he was making stuff up again. As for the microwave etc., sure there is alot of energy there, but its not usable energy. Also, you have to generate the energy somewhere. If I burn 2Gal. of fuel to make enough electricity to go 2 miles, I am only getting 1mpg! Repeat after me: "There is NO such thing as free enegy. Not all energy is useful."

Research "lifters".....very simple electric devices that defy gravity....I've built a couple and have been amazed.

Click to expand...

Those tinfoil and string contraptions? Again, nothing special. They ionize the air, causing it to flow down, creating lift. They don't work in a vacuum.

imported post

FogRider wrote:

Back out the "%C2%A0" after .html....not sure why the added characters are there....... If you had actually taken the time to READ, you would have understood that Mr. Meyers system CREATED the hydrogen onboard as he drove, "on the go", as it were. His system converted water into fuel AS IT RAN....it was NOT STORED. 100 mpg using WATER.

Click to expand...

I did get to that page, and I am still not convinced what he did was anything special. Why hasn't it been re-created? The scientific method says that for a fact to be proven, it must be reproducible. I can show you a gold brick and say I crapped it out, but unless I can do it again, you are going to call me a liar.

I really don't care about "scientific method".....this is all documented....the car exists and it worked...all the patents are available.
Again...READ...the man DIED...how the hell can he do it again? Contact his brother, maybe you could go see the vehicle for yourself.....just because it hasn't been mass produced, dosen't mean it isn't real.

Good question....maybe read the patents? There is a great deal of his research/patents available. The bigger problem is understanding the technology with our limited intelect.

Click to expand...

See the above for scientific method. Unless his stuff can be re-created, I have to call BS.

You can call it whatever you like.....MANY of Teslas experiments have been reproduced and I have no doupt that many more will be.

I challenge you to PROVE that he "made up" anything. Transmitting electricity is a COMMON occurance...ever hear of microwaves?, radio?, radar? True, electricity can't be transmitted at the frequency that we commonly use (60hz) but Tesla WAS transmitting electricity at extremely HF ranges and made several PUBLIC displays while doing so.

Click to expand...

Look up Tessla's Death Ray, hor his machine capable of demolishing a building, or try to prove his electric car operated the way he said it did. When people doubted his tiny "power source" could power a car, he got pissed and took all his research away. Why would he do that? Either he was an ass, or he was making stuff up again. As for the microwave etc., sure there is alot of energy there, but its not usable energy. Also, you have to generate the energy somewhere. If I burn 2Gal. of fuel to make enough electricity to go 2 miles, I am only getting 1mpg! Repeat after me: "There is NO such thing as free enegy. Not all energy is useful."

I don't need to "look up" Teslas Death Ray....focus high energy microwaves and see what happens...ever put metal into a microwave oven? The machine that could destroy a building was a documented incident as was his car.....he didn't "get pissed" and take away all his research, J.P. Morgan got greedy and pulled funding when he found out that Tesla could broadcast free electricity to everyone.
As far as free energy....there are several overunity devices as well as devices that tap into ZPE.
If you'd like to see one that even YOU can reproduce, check out the "Bidini School Girl Motor" here....
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG
Also see http://www.cheniere.org/ and http://www.icehouse.net/john34/bedinibearden.html regarding ZPE.
Just because some/most people aren't capable of understanding something, doesn't mean that it isn't true....there has always been and will always be, a select few that know/understand far more than the rest of us.
Really?...could you tell me where/how WE PRODUCE the energy that causes lightning? Just because we haven't figured out how to utilize some form of energy doesn't make it useless.

Research "lifters".....very simple electric devices that defy gravity....I've built a couple and have been amazed.

Click to expand...

Those tinfoil and string contraptions? Again, nothing special. They ionize the air, causing it to flow down, creating lift. They don't work in a vacuum.

First, we don't live in a vacum....nothing special?....NASA seems to disagree........
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213312.pdf

Click to expand...

imported post

Wow... just...wow. Either you are trolling me or you are just... I don't know what. The laws of thermodynamics say the over unity is impossible. And zpe is not a usable source of energy, it's just the lowest amount of energy a system can have. If you want to go against the laws of physics, go for it.

Who said the car didn't work? It obviously did, just not the was Tesla said it did. Of course high energy microwaves exist, but thats not what Tesla was trying to use. Of course there will be people that understand things better than most, but the difference between them and Tesla is that they can then explain these theorys, and they can be reproduced. Tesla was a genius in many ways, but he also was a crackpot. It's no coincidence that the only inventions that cannot be recreated are the ones that he was just making up, and never proved worked the way he said did. He made the tesla coil. Anyone can make a tesla coil. The tesla turbine can be built. The radio car, the death ray, these were based on very little fact, and exaggerated by Tesla. You can get power from radio waves, not enough to run a car. You can generate and fire charged particles, but not enough for a large scale weapon.

No free energy. Nothing works like that. Never has, never will. The burden of proof is on the person making the wild claims. The tesla car was never proven to work the way he said, I don't have any need to prove that it did. Again, I can claim to crap gold, but it's not up to you to prove I can't.

The water car? If it works as well as claimed, no-one would be able to cover that up. Car companies certainly wouldn't, they want the next big thing. If oil is running out, why would they want to kill themselves by destroying their future product. The conspiracy theorys hold no water.


If you haven't gotten this yet, I am not going to convince you. I am willing to believe in new and unusual inventions, put you need to prove they will work well. I don't have the patience for trolls or crackpots. Good day, and good luck.

imported post

FogRider, you're right on the mark there. But...

I have a game called "Degrees of Relevance". Here, we try to see how many steps, or degrees, it takes to get from a thread topic to the topic of Open Carry.

1) Cars might possibly run on water
2) Water is used to make a little bit of electricity in this country.
3) Gun factories use electricity.
4) People carry handguns.
5) Some do it openly.

So, 5 degrees of relevance, then. :celebrate

imported post

Yeah. Science and conspiracy theorys are some of my hot buttons, and when I see stuff like that it sets me off. I'm done now though.

imported post

Just for information I only wantedtoknow if anyone had heard any more about this, is it a thing to watch for is it dead or it was never a plasuable idea in the first place.

It has been answered but it has not been setteled to the minds of some so I think that with all due respect I will under the circumstances consider the question a setteled mater and thank all who responded.

It was nevermy intent to stir up a pot of dodo or tocreate such a fervor over a simple question.

I will consider this matter closed!

imported post

I kinda feel bad about the off topic crap, so here is my honest opinion of the original subject:

I could definitely be something big. It's not there yet, but it is something to keep an eye on.

imported post

FogRider wrote:

I kinda feel bad about the off topic crap, so here is my honest opinion of the original subject:

I could definitely be something big. It's not there yet, but it is something to keep an eye on.

Click to expand...

That would have been all that was necessary to answer the origional question.

imported post

But then I wouldn't have gotten to rant, and ranting about off topic subjects is an important part of my day.


Edit to expand on some other thoughts. Feel free to not read anything after this line.

I just cant let this go quite yet, not after getting myself all riled up on the subject. I have done a little more research on this particular setup. (I could be completely off base, these are my ow opinions based on a small amount of research.) It would seem that what this guy is doing with the torch is borderline BS. It is obviously working, but maybe not how or as efficiently as he is claiming. The car, while a cool concept, doesn't seem to use any radical new tech. He is using electrolysis to get H2 out of water, and burning that. The problem is, you need energy to separate the H2 out of the water, and you can't get even the same amount of energy back out of the H2 by burning it. Basically, you are spending X amount of energy to get X/2 energy back out. However, energy costs are just a part of the power source decision. Even if you are getting less efficient energy compared to gasoline, it may be better for the environment this way, and it may be easier to get the energy (water is damn near everywhere). Incidentally, this is why corn ethanol is a losing proposition. By the time you put enough energy into growing corn and getting the ethanol out, you are ahead of the game to not use ethanol.

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

I really don't care about "scientific method".....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That is quite apparent.

this is all documented....the car exists and it worked...all the patents are available.
Again...READ...the man DIED...how the hell can he do it again? Contact his brother, maybe you could go see the vehicle for yourself.....just because it hasn't been mass produced, dosen't mean it isn't real.

Click to expand...

If it is documented and there is an existing example, prove it works by building one yourself. Then subject it to rigorous review by your peer scientists (difficult given your attitude toward "scientific method"). If it's the real deal, it'll be accepted as scientific fact.

Otherwise, it's crackpot BS, like pyramid power.

The scientific method places the burden of proof upon those who challenge the established theories of how the physical world works. That keeps the crackpots and the frauds down.

Anytime someone starts complaining that "this stuff is real, but the oil companies are suppressing it", I ask them to show me it's real. Reproduce it yourself. Prove it. The answer I always get is, "Well, I don't have the knowledge. It was invented by some guy I saw on Faux News or on a website, and he's dead, now, and oil companies burned his notes." If you do corner the actual guy who made the claim, he's always got some excuse for why he can't show you exactly how it works.

As to the energy source in the OP, I have heard of it, quite a while ago, and if it were the real deal then it would be being used for some application, if not in your car then in idustrial use. Since it's not, I assume it's not real. Up to him, or his supporters, to prove me wrong.

I know you think I'm being a d_ck, but stuff like this really p_sses me off. Frauds who make this stuff up are like the liars who say there was no moon landings, etc. All a racket to make money and spread nonsense at the expense of the public.

imported post

FogRider wrote:

But then I wouldn't have gotten to rant, and ranting about off topic subjects is an important part of my day.


Edit to expand on some other thoughts. Feel free to not read anything after this line.

I just cant let this go quite yet, not after getting myself all riled up on the subject. I have done a little more research on this particular setup. (I could be completely off base, these are my ow opinions based on a small amount of research.) It would seem that what this guy is doing with the torch is borderline BS. It is obviously working, but maybe not how or as efficiently as he is claiming. The car, while a cool concept, doesn't seem to use any radical new tech. He is using electrolysis to get H2 out of water, and burning that. The problem is, you need energy to separate the H2 out of the water, and you can't get even the same amount of energy back out of the H2 by burning it. Basically, you are spending X amount of energy to get X/2 energy back out. However, energy costs are just a part of the power source decision. Even if you are getting less efficient energy compared to gasoline, it may be better for the environment this way, and it may be easier to get the energy (water is damn near everywhere). Incidentally, this is why corn ethanol is a losing proposition. By the time you put enough energy into growing corn and getting the ethanol out, you are ahead of the game to not use ethanol.

Click to expand...

While he IS using elctrolysis and burning the H2, the "radical new tech" that he came up with is a method/system
that uses FAR less energy to break down the water....his system runs off the cars electrical system and generates enough to run on pure water...ie, no gasoline
BTW, this system has been replicated by someone else using his design/instructions....it has been verified....but then, you'd know this if you had researched it enough.......

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

I really don't care about "scientific method".....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That is quite apparent.

What I meant was that I, me personally, don't care about "scientific method".....I'm not a scientist....and, it has already been replicated/proven.
There's no need to be insulting.......

this is all documented....the car exists and it worked...all the patents are available.
Again...READ...the man DIED...how the hell can he do it again? Contact his brother, maybe you could go see the vehicle for yourself.....just because it hasn't been mass produced, dosen't mean it isn't real.

Click to expand...

If it is documented and there is an existing example, prove it works by building one yourself. Then subject it to rigorous review by your peer scientists (difficult given your attitude toward "scientific method"). If it's the real deal, it'll be accepted as scientific fact.

I have neither the knowledge, inclination nor money to build one....there's no need anyway since it has already been replicated/proven by others.
Again, why do you feel the need to be insulting?
Not everything invented and proven to be "the real deal" gets to be produced and sold on the free market. The patent office/government can and does "confiscate" (for lack of a better word) devices/inventions that might benefit our military or cause major economic problems etc.
I'm sure you think I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist or whatever...all I can say is "do the research"...it happens.


Otherwise, it's crackpot BS, like pyramid power.

The scientific method places the burden of proof upon those who challenge the established theories of how the physical world works. That keeps the crackpots and the frauds down.

Anytime someone starts complaining that "this stuff is real, but the oil companies are suppressing it", I ask them to show me it's real. Reproduce it yourself. Prove it. The answer I always get is, "Well, I don't have the knowledge. It was invented by some guy I saw on Faux News or on a website, and he's dead, now, and oil companies burned his notes." If you do corner the actual guy who made the claim, he's always got some excuse for why he can't show you exactly how it works.

As to the energy source in the OP, I have heard of it, quite a while ago, and if it were the real deal then it would be being used for some application, if not in your car then in idustrial use. Since it's not, I assume it's not real. Up to him, or his supporters, to prove me wrong.

I know you think I'm being a d_ck, but stuff like this really p_sses me off. Frauds who make this stuff up are like the liars who say there was no moon landings, etc. All a racket to make money and spread nonsense at the expense of the public.

While you have a right to your opinion, and I would die to defend that right, not everyone that comes up with/invents something new is out to "spread nonesense" or rip anyone off.....I'm sure glad that everyone doesn't share your opinion otherwise, we would never see progress.
All that I ask is that you research something before making a rash decision that it is "nonesense".....remember, they said the same sort of thing about Teslas AC power system, the Wright brothers airplane......look up what IBM executives said about PCs when the idea for "a computer in every home" was mentioned......

Click to expand...

imported post

Kelly J wrote:

FogRider wrote:

Kelly J wrote:

http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m55/cobra44_2006/?action=view&current=WaterFuel.flv



Why is it that we have not heard more about this fuel source?

Click to expand...

Because there is no magic fuel that will replace petroleum. There is no conspiracy here, move along.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused here, one no one is talking about a Magic Fuel, and there are, other fuels, than Petroleum, and who said anything about a Conspiracy, of any kind.

I merely asked a question, of why we have not heard any more about this process, and I guess I am of the old school, that thinks that there are people that try to invent things, like the Write Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, A. G. Bell, just to mention a few, also I might add the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a diving bell, Air Plane, a helicopter, a Submarine, and a space ship long before they became fact to the every day person, but your right I will just move on to see if I can find someone that thinks outside the box.

Click to expand...

+1 Kelly J,

The torch uses "Browns Gas" and there are a couple manufacturers that sell them.
They do use water and they do use electrloysis to break water down but do not seperate the O2 & H2 into seperate components and remix them...rather, the O2 & H2 remain mixed but in monatomic state...ie, not joined into water. It is used directly from the system as the gas is "made".
Another interesting aspect of Browns gas is the fact that it implodes as it turns back into water (with 0 pollution)....this is oppposite from the way that fossil fuels burn....they explode and do create pollution.
The systems such as the video shows have about the same AC power requirments that a table saw or air compressor and have been around for years.

http://www.watertorch.com/

http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Yull-Brown/Free-Energy-Demo.html

BTW, a team built AND FLEW Da Vinci's glider...wonder where we'd be today if people had listened instead of laughed......

http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-leonardos-dream-machines-dvd--pi-2108848.html

imported post

Just got over a couple week argument with the science-ignorant on the other forum I frequent so I'm not gonna go back into it here. Basically:



Whatever energy you get out, it's NO WHERE NEAR the amount you need to run the generator to separate the water in the first place.

imported post

FogRider wrote:

Wow... just...wow. Either you are trolling me or you are just... I don't know what. The laws of thermodynamics say the over unity is impossible. And zpe is not a usable source of energy, it's just the lowest amount of energy a system can have. If you want to go against the laws of physics, go for it.

Click to expand...

[size=[font="arial, Arial, Helvetica"]
You obviously misunderstand ZPE.......

...Quantum theory predicts, and experiments verify, that so-called empty space (the vacuum) contains an enormous residual background energy known as zero-point energy or ZPE....
[/font]][/size][size=[font="arial, Arial, Helvetica"].....Theoretical contributions have been done by such pioneers as Nobel laureates Ilya Prigogine, P. A. M. Dirac, John Wheeler, and Julian Schwinger. ]Prigogine, for example, has shown that the second law of thermodynamics can be expanded[/i] to include systems in which order evolves from randomness -- a result also obtained by Puthoff who utilized theories of zero-point energy to obtain an equivalent result.....

[/size][/font]http://www.halexandria.org/dward154.htm

Damn those Nobel Laureate crackpots!

Who said the car didn't work? It obviously did, just not the was Tesla said it did. Of course high energy microwaves exist, but thats not what Tesla was trying to use. Of course there will be people that understand things better than most, but the difference between them and Tesla is that they can then explain these theorys, and they can be reproduced. Tesla was a genius in many ways, but he also was a crackpot. It's no coincidence that the only inventions that cannot be recreated are the ones that he was just making up, and never proved worked the way he said did. He made the tesla coil. Anyone can make a tesla coil. The tesla turbine can be built. The radio car, the death ray, these were based on very little fact, and exaggerated by Tesla. You can get power from radio waves, not enough to run a car. You can generate and fire charged particles, but not enough for a large scale weapon.

No free energy. Nothing works like that. Never has, never will. The burden of proof is on the person making the wild claims. The tesla car was never proven to work the way he said, I don't have any need to prove that it did. Again, I can claim to crap gold, but it's not up to you to prove I can't.

The water car? If it works as well as claimed, no-one would be able to cover that up. Car companies certainly wouldn't, they want the next big thing. If oil is running out, why would they want to kill themselves by destroying their future product. The conspiracy theorys hold no water.


If you haven't gotten this yet, I am not going to convince you. I am willing to believe in new and unusual inventions, put you need to prove they will work well. I don't have the patience for trolls or crackpots. Good day, and good luck.

Let me know when you're nominated for the Nobel Prize......or hell, even when you invent a way to use electricity that is as far above our current system as Tesla did when he invented AC.....THEN maybe your rantings can mean something.....as you say, good day and good luck

Click to expand...

imported post

unrequited wrote:

Just got over a couple week argument with the science-ignorant on the other forum I frequent so I'm not gonna go back into it here. Basically:

Whatever energy you get out, it's NO WHERE NEAR the amount you need to run the generator to separate the water in the first place.

Click to expand...

Can you not accept the fact that technology improves?...that JUST MAYBE someone has discovered something that has been overlooked in the past?......if this has never happened before, how is it that we don't still live in caves and cook on an open fire?
In '98, I picked up a computer magazine with a "headline" on the front cover that stated something like
"The New 400 Mhz Super Systems"....that was less than 10 years ago.....it was stated as fact then that 1Ghz would never be reached......hmmm

imported post

http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm:?

Dear Eric,

I worked with a researcher & manufacturer of hydrogen/oxygen gas generators during the mid- 1980's. I am a welding engineer and entered that particular business fresh from a senior technical position of 10 years with a prominent fortune 500 group. I eventually left the hydroxy gas generator industry in 1990. During my tenure with the company I co-authored several patents related to combustion modification and flame thermal map manipulation of stoichiometric 2H2O2 gas mixtures. At this time I became directly involved in litigation proceedings with Yull Brown. Unfortunately, my colleagues and I wasted a considerable sum of money investigating Brown and his mostly ridiculous claims.

Hearing Brown referred to as a "Bulgarian physicist", "world famous scientist" etc. is extremely nauseating bull****, the man had been coaxing money from gullible investors, morons and unfortunately, innocent little old ladies in Australia for years in the late '70's and mid '80's. Brown asserted that he had been for many years, a professional electrical engineer with Asea Brown Boveri (ABB). It was discovered however, that Brown was formerly employed by ABB as a somewhat more lowly, electrician. Furthermore, Brown unashamedly claimed the title of 'professor' (bestowed by the University of Life Sciences). When contacted in 1986, the 'University of Life Sciences" was actually a residential address (Chicago I recall), a housewife answers the telephone, she knew of Brown because he and the woman's husband had set up this "university". (her husband by the way, was unable to come to the phone because he was actually at his daytime job driving a truck somewhere). Professor ? - yeah, right!

imported post

It is unfortunate to have to read otherwise respected correspondents showing their weaknesses. I note that COP666 has restrained himself from displaying his 'opinion.'


Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

I respectfully submit a suggestion to the moderators to delete this entirely off-subject thread.

imported post

Seconded.