Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC  (Read 235519 times)

#### ltseung888

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4363
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2014, 11:39:06 AM »

Lawrence,
I would like to offer a slightly different angle on your conjecture, one that relates to your lead-out work with the Joule Theif. I recall you posting about your team having put a secondary on the JT and then using the secondary's configuration to produce a feedback dynamic resulting in a standing wave, which can be drawn upon to produce excess energy. I believe this is the basic principle that has been spoken of by at least one person who was present at Stan Meyer's disclosure of his method to the Maori people in New Zealand.

Some commentators like Bearden will state that the inductive kickback is actually the aether pushing back on the circuit with energy from the vacuum to restore balance from the unbalanced state produced by a voltage spike. My question is:

Does this energy from the vacuum have some kind of unique property which orders water to be more perfectly aligned (at the intra and inter-molecular level) in order that it can produce gases in overabundant quantity as Meyer and others who follow his method have claimed?

It is one thing to pulse water with a high voltage spike. But it seems to be quite another to take the inductive kickback from a circuit to produce a standing wave, and then, to use the standing wave's claimed overunity to drive a water-fracturing circuit. Does the energy from the vacuum in fact constitute a more primeval and effective ordering force for water to properly align for this kind of superabundant gas production to take place?

Here are some of the posts where you dealt with a standing wave in the JT produced by secondary configuration. See this post and subsequent posts further down on page:

Bob

[/font]
@Bob,
When I returned to Hong Kong from USA two years ago, I got support.  We gave over 150 free samples.  I believe overunity.com, energetic forum and overunityresearch.com moderators got them also.
One important component is the Super Capacitor – 10F.  After the battery was removed, the LEDs continue to light for over 20 minutes.  In some cases, the LEDs blinked and lighted for over 10 hours.
Geoffrey Sun discovered a strange behavior.  Some Boards have the LEDs off and then on brightly again.
See:
Some groups started to work on varying the inductance and the capacitance and the Stan Meyer Water Fuel Cell type experiments.  At least one group showed promising results and got funded.  (All information became confidential as to be expected.)
I am reproducing some slides on my thoughts.  (Thoughts only – no experimental confirmation yet.)
Lawrence

#### Void

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2333
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #61 on: August 07, 2014, 05:01:58 PM »
When I returned to Hong Kong from USA two years ago, I got support.  We gave over 150 free samples.  I believe overunity.com, energetic forum and overunityresearch.com moderators got them also.
One important component is the Super Capacitor – 10F.  After the battery was removed, the LEDs continue to light for over 20 minutes.

Hello ltseung888 my friend. Hope you are doing well.
It should be expected that a 10F super capacitor can run a Joule Thief circuit for 20 minutes or more
after being charged for only 10 seconds with an AA battery (approx. 1.5V). Exact results will depend
on the type of AA battery that is used to charge the 10F super capacitor, but I did a quick test using
my bench power supply set to 1.5VDC (max 3 Amps current), and I was able to charge a 10F super capacitor fully to 1.5V
after 10 seconds of charging.
Here are the calculations:
A 10F capacitor at 1.5V = 11.25 Joules of stored energy
20 minutes run time of the Joule Thief circuit  = 20 mins x 60s/min = 1200 seconds
1 Watt = 1 Joule/second so,
11.25J /1200s = 9.38 mW average power consumption over the 20 minute period.
Since a Joule thief's power consumption falls off as the supply voltage falls, and a joule thief
only consumes maybe about 10mW to 5mW max or so in the voltage range of 1.5V to 0.4V supply voltage,
then it is an expected result that the 10F capacitor can run the joule thief circuit for at least 20 minutes
when charged to around 1.5V. This appears to be quite normal behavior.
All the best...

#### ltseung888

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4363
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #62 on: August 07, 2014, 07:40:10 PM »
Hello ltseung888 my friend. Hope you are doing well.
It should be expected that a 10F super capacitor can run a Joule Thief circuit for 20 minutes or more
after being charged for only 10 seconds with an AA battery (approx. 1.5V). Exact results will depend
on the type of AA battery that is used to charge the 10F super capacitor, but I did a quick test using
my bench power supply set to 1.5VDC (max 3 Amps current), and I was able to charge a 10F super capacitor fully to 1.5V
after 10 seconds of charging.
Here are the calculations:
A 10F capacitor at 1.5V = 11.25 Joules of stored energy
20 minutes run time of the Joule Thief circuit  = 20 mins x 60s/min = 1200 seconds
1 Watt = 1 Joule/second so,
11.25J /1200s = 9.38 mW average power consumption over the 20 minute period.
Since a Joule thief's power consumption falls off as the supply voltage falls, and a joule thief
only consumes maybe about 10mW to 5mW max or so in the voltage range of 1.5V to 0.4V supply voltage,
then it is an expected result that the 10F capacitor can run the joule thief circuit for at least 20 minutes
when charged to around 1.5V. This appears to be quite normal behavior.
All the best...
@void,
Thanks for the estimation.  The direction I took was - what makes something a super capacitor?  Can I assume that the "electron cloud" distribution is responsible?
If so, electric field applied to water dipoles should be able to change the "electron clouds".  Different electron clouds can be stable and contain different energy.
Lead-out energy then becomes a matter of using such energy.
Divine Revelation?
God Bless,
Lawrence

#### Void

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2333
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #63 on: August 07, 2014, 09:12:15 PM »
@void,
Thanks for the estimation.  The direction I took was - what makes something a super capacitor?  Can I assume that the "electron cloud" distribution is responsible?
If so, electric field applied to water dipoles should be able to change the "electron clouds".  Different electron clouds can be stable and contain different energy.
Lead-out energy then becomes a matter of using such energy.
Divine Revelation?
God Bless,
Lawrence

Hello Lawrence. The thing to consider is, does a super capacitor at 10 Farads provide more
run time (more energy storage/energy delivery) for a device such as a joule thief than if we take a bunch of
regular electrolytic or other type capacitors and parallel them together to make 10 Farads total? There
is no reason to think there would be any difference. 10 Farads is 10 Farads, so the result should be the same.
A 10 Farad capacitor at 1.5V charge will power a joule thief circuit for about 20 minutes at least, whether you are
using a super capacitor or whether you are using a bank of capacitors made from other type capacitors. Whether you
are using a super capacitor or not should not make any difference.  In that sense there should be nothing special
about a super capacitor except that they have a larger capacitance in a much smaller package than other
types of capacitors. They are able to store more charge in a smaller package, but for a given capacitance
the amount of energy storage is the same as with capacitors of another type of the same capacitance.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there is nothing unusual about running a joule ringer circuit for twenty minutes
using a 10F capacitor charged to about 1.5V. That is a normal and expected result.
All the best...

#### ltseung888

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4363
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #64 on: August 07, 2014, 11:36:21 PM »
[font=][/font]
[font=](http://www.overunity.com/file:///C:/Users/Jen/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.gif)[/font]
Principle construction of a supercapacitor; 1. power source, 2. collector, 3.polarized electrode, 4. Helmholtz double layer, 5. electrolyte having positive and negative ions, 6. Separator.  See diagram.

Electrochemical capacitors (supercapacitors) consist of two electrodes separated by an ion permeable membrane (separator), and an electrolyte connecting electrically the both electrodes. By applying a voltage to the capacitor an electric double layer at both electrodes is formed, which has a positive or negative layer of ions deposited in a mirror image on the opposite electrode.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor

***** supercapacitor itself has elements of electrolysis.  Can "ordered water" store electrical energy in similar fashion?
If it all boils down to the electron cloud arrangements, such may be possible.  Such research has scientific backing.

#### ltseung888

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4363
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #65 on: August 08, 2014, 09:32:24 AM »
One question asked was:  How is Pulse Force different from Steady Force?
In Physics, work = force x disploacement.  Energy is required to do work.  The units of work and energy are the same.
When one has two equal and opposite Steady Forces F1 and F2 acting on an object, there can be no displacement.  No work is done or no energy is involved.

When one has two Pulsing Forces F3 and F4 acting on the same object, there will be displacement.  Much work is done and much energy is involved

Study the attached diagram.  Thus Pulsing DC Voltage is expected to be different from Steady DC Voltage.

#### Marshallin

• Newbie
• Posts: 32
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #66 on: August 08, 2014, 01:31:33 PM »
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

I fullfil my gaps in electronics, and looks like realy si-tyristor is not needed here.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #67 on: August 08, 2014, 01:54:58 PM »
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

I fullfil my gaps in electronics, and looks like realy si-tyristor is not needed here.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.
Not only is it not needed, the flyback topology results in a long lasting current tail that is counter to the stated hypothesis of the researchers.  A CDI topology would be more faithful to their idea of delivering all the energy in pulses so narrow that a double barrier cannot form.

#### Bob Smith

• Hero Member
• Posts: 733
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #68 on: August 08, 2014, 03:00:38 PM »
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.
Sorry about that. I do agree with you - that winding type and size are crucial to obtaining this effect.
Bob

#### ltseung888

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4363
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #69 on: August 09, 2014, 10:25:48 PM »
I am not sure whether the following research is closely linked with this topic.
http://phys.org/news187622107.html
In nature, Methane can be "trapped" by water as Methane Hydrate or combustible ice.  This ice can burn when ignited.

(CH4.5.75h20) methane hydrate contains a large amount of methane trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.

Different structures of water can contain different quantity of energy.  DC Pulsing may give energy causing the "water particles" to turn to a different structure.  This can explain the result of the Meyer and other experiments.

[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]

#### mscoffman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1377
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #70 on: August 10, 2014, 01:43:02 AM »
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

I fullfil my gaps in electronics, and looks like realy si-tyristor is not needed here.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.

One thing that I don't know if anyone has discussed but, perhaps the low parts count of this circuit is allowing
the active device, the thyristor to listen to conditions inside the electrolyzer cell. Lets assume some pulse of
subatomic particles is ready to deposit a fairly large amount of energy into the cell. Listening for leading edge of the pulse
might allow the cell to be set-up for when the main body of the pulse arrives. This means if a cell has correlated
its behavior with the pulse, it might end up with significantly more energy then a cell that didn't. I especially like
the concept that knocking bubbles off the electrolzer electrodes that might allow those bubbles to participate in future
reactions, you would want to buffer these bubbles up beforehand but then launch them during the leading edge of the pulse.
Of course I never make suggestions like this without there being a rather significant body of evidence from several different
areas of science that it is true. If in general natural systems were in a hair trigger condition like this, then a
random burst of RF EMI from these system might actually be a signal to initiate cell conditioning to accept an
incoming pulse. I would really like to discuss my main evidence, but I can't.

Looking at the device structure I suspect the si thyristor might itself be the active element in a number of different systems
showing overunity returns and then it just got an all around "bad name" for participating.

:S:MarkSCoffman

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #71 on: August 10, 2014, 01:57:11 AM »
One thing that I don't know if anyone has discussed but, perhaps the low parts count of this circuit is allowing
the active device, the thyristor to listen to conditions inside the electrolyzer cell. Lets assume some pulse of
subatomic particles is ready to deposit a fairly large amount of energy into the cell. Listening for leading edge of the pulse
might allow the cell to be set-up for when the main body of the pulse arrives. This means if a cell has correlated
its behavior with the pulse, it might end up with significantly more energy then a cell that didn't. I especially like
the concept that knocking bubbles off the electrolzer electrodes might allow those bubbles to participate in future
reactions, you would want to buffer those bubbles up beforehand but then launch them during the leading edge of the pulse.
Of course I never make suggestions like this without there being a rather significant body of evidence from several different
areas of science that it is true. If in general natural systems were in a hair trigger condition like this, then a
random burst of RF EMI from these system might actually be a signal to initiate cell conditioning to accept an
incoming pulse. I really would like to discuss my main evidence, but I can't.

Looking at the device structure I suspect the si thyristor might itself be the active element in a number of different systems
showing overunity returns and then it just got an all around "bad name" for participating.

:S:MarkSCoffman
What thyristors do well is: hold off large voltages, pass large currents with modest voltage drops, and turn on fairly quickly.  What they don't tend to do is turn off very quickly, or pass current with sub 1V voltage drops.  The Japanese tam were looking for a circuit to ostensibly produce short duration current pulses so as to avoid double layer formation.  Their waveforms suggest that they did not succeed with that circuit, which is why I suggest a CDI topology would be a better choice as far as their idea goes.  The Japanese team was looking at performing electrolysis on a large scale where average currents would be large and due to concentrating the current into narrow pulses, the peak currents would be enormous.  they did not claim, nor were they seeking over unity.  They were seeking to overcome some loss mechanisms that are known to reduce efficiency well below the theoretical energy conservative limits.

#### Les Banki

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 82
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #72 on: August 10, 2014, 06:51:17 AM »
All,

I want all of you to know that those who have criticised and ridiculed in order to discredit the two articles and their clear message (and by doing so they have actually attacked the authors!), have  demonstrated a total lack of practical knowledge of basic electrolysis methods!

I will briefly explain what they have missed.

Starting with the Japanese article:

First of all, the 'critics' have failed to understand the purpose of that article which was/is to publish the concept of this new method,

the nano-pulse power electrolysis.

Second, their experimental set-up was NOT following established practices or choice of materials.

Take for example the use of Platinum plates for the tests.

Since Platinum is a catalyst (in fuel cells), it can actually be detrimental to the electrolysis process!

Next is the distance between the electrodes, 3 cm (30 mm).

In real life applications, however, no-one would use 3 cm gap!
Period.

Then comes probably the most important factor, catalyst concentration.

The Japanese team put 1M (56 g) of KOH in 3.4L of water.

That is 16.47 g per litre.

Now, compare that to the Indian test set-up.

Their range of NaOH concentration ranged from 0.5 g to 15 g, ending up finding the optimum concentration of 4 g per litre of water.

Notwithstanding the difference between NaOH and KOH, (1 mole NaOH is 40 g, 1 mole KOH is 56 g)

there is a VERY LARGE difference between the two test set-ups.

To sum it up:

The Japanese tests used an electrolyte concentration of 16.47 g of KOH per litre of water while the Indian tests used only 4 g of NaOH per litre.

Further, the Indian test cells had a distance between the electrodes in the order of 1.5 – 2 mm while the Japanese team had 30 mm!!

Do you understand the significance of all the above??

On top of all that I have stated above, there are still ongoing arguments about the “tail” current through the cell.

Here I wish to add that there is an excellent article (which I have had for some time) dealing with that very subject:

ANALYSIS OF INDUCTIVE CURRENT PULSE DYNAMICS IN WATER ELECTROLYSES CELL
(4th World Hydrogen Technologies Convention, 2011, Glasgow, U.K.  Paper ID: 0103)

Arguments are still going on against the use of IES (Inductive Energy Storage), suggesting Capacitive Discharge instead,

WITHOUT disclosing the technical facts about the differences! For example, with CD, pulse amplitude cannot exceed the power supply voltage, simply because  the capacitor cannot charge

to a higher voltage than the power supply delivers!!

The IES has no such limitation. In fact, pulse amplitude is usually MANY times the supply voltage!
Then there is the energy storage capacity of the Inductive method,  2-20MJ/m3, which is at least one order of magnitude
LARGER than the Capacitive storage method.

Needless to say, it is all done to “help” you!!  You should be grateful......!
Yeh,...right!

they did not claim, nor were they seeking over unity.

As a reminder, here is my Reply # 37 on August 04, 2014 (slightly edited)

“And all this ABSURD nonsense about "overunity" here!

It is about time that someone (in this case, me) tells you all that running engines on water ONLY has ALWAYS been WAY "overunity", as it is,

without the need for "very careful measurements, rigorous scientific calculation" as you put it!

You don't believe it?

Fine.

Then you better explain HOW and WHY an ICE, with its 26% efficiency, runs beautifully, all day long on nothing but HydrOxy,

generated by  no 'fancy' circuit but quite ordinary electrolysis (but done CORRECTLY)!

The trouble is that most of you have fallen for all the BS "scientific" explanations for WHY this can't be done!

Try to tell that to all those around the world who have done it for several decades already.

Or to the man I have personally known for 20 years who has been running his first "water car" since 1979 and the second one (a large van) since 1998,

with the "government's" blessing, may I add!

Guys, it is time to cut the BULLSHIT!

You have all been had BIG time!

TRY to snap out of it!

Guys, you want FREE ENERGY, right?

Well, WAKE UP and pay attention!

STOP arguing and theorising!

More to come.....

Cheers,
Les Banki

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #73 on: August 10, 2014, 07:50:59 AM »
All,

I want all of you to know that those who have criticised and ridiculed in order to discredit the two articles and their clear message (and by doing so they have actually attacked the authors!), have  demonstrated a total lack of practical knowledge of basic electrolysis methods!

I will briefly explain what they have missed.

Starting with the Japanese article:

First of all, the 'critics' have failed to understand the purpose of that article which was/is to publish the concept of this new method,

the nano-pulse power electrolysis.

Second, their experimental set-up was NOT following established practices or choice of materials.

Take for example the use of Platinum plates for the tests.

Since Platinum is a catalyst (in fuel cells), it can actually be detrimental to the electrolysis process!

Next is the distance between the electrodes, 3 cm (30 mm).

In real life applications, however, no-one would use 3 cm gap!
Period.

Then comes probably the most important factor, catalyst concentration.

The Japanese team put 1M (56 g) of KOH in 3.4L of water.

That is 16.47 g per litre.

Now, compare that to the Indian test set-up.

Their range of NaOH concentration ranged from 0.5 g to 15 g, ending up finding the optimum concentration of 4 g per litre of water.

Notwithstanding the difference between NaOH and KOH, (1 mole NaOH is 40 g, 1 mole KOH is 56 g)

there is a VERY LARGE difference between the two test set-ups.

To sum it up:

The Japanese tests used an electrolyte concentration of 16.47 g of KOH per litre of water while the Indian tests used only 4 g of NaOH per litre.

Further, the Indian test cells had a distance between the electrodes in the order of 1.5 – 2 mm while the Japanese team had 30 mm!!

Do you understand the significance of all the above??

On top of all that I have stated above, there are still ongoing arguments about the “tail” current through the cell.

Here I wish to add that there is an excellent article (which I have had for some time) dealing with that very subject:

ANALYSIS OF INDUCTIVE CURRENT PULSE DYNAMICS IN WATER ELECTROLYSES CELL
(4th World Hydrogen Technologies Convention, 2011, Glasgow, U.K.  Paper ID: 0103)

Arguments are still going on against the use of IES (Inductive Energy Storage), suggesting Capacitive Discharge instead,

WITHOUT disclosing the technical facts about the differences! For example, with CD, pulse amplitude cannot exceed the power supply voltage, simply because  the capacitor cannot charge

to a higher voltage than the power supply delivers!!

The IES has no such limitation. In fact, pulse amplitude is usually MANY times the supply voltage!
Then there is the energy storage capacity of the Inductive method,  2-20MJ/m3, which is at least one order of magnitude
LARGER than the Capacitive storage method.

Needless to say, it is all done to “help” you!!  You should be grateful......!
Yeh,...right!

As a reminder, here is my Reply # 37 on August 04, 2014 (slightly edited)

“And all this ABSURD nonsense about "overunity" here!

It is about time that someone (in this case, me) tells you all that running engines on water ONLY has ALWAYS been WAY "overunity", as it is,

without the need for "very careful measurements, rigorous scientific calculation" as you put it!

You don't believe it?

Fine.

Then you better explain HOW and WHY an ICE, with its 26% efficiency, runs beautifully, all day long on nothing but HydrOxy,

generated by  no 'fancy' circuit but quite ordinary electrolysis (but done CORRECTLY)!

The trouble is that most of you have fallen for all the BS "scientific" explanations for WHY this can't be done!

Try to tell that to all those around the world who have done it for several decades already.

Or to the man I have personally known for 20 years who has been running his first "water car" since 1979 and the second one (a large van) since 1998,

with the "government's" blessing, may I add!

Guys, it is time to cut the BULLSHIT!

You have all been had BIG time!

TRY to snap out of it!

Guys, you want FREE ENERGY, right?

Well, WAKE UP and pay attention!

STOP arguing and theorising!

More to come.....

Cheers,
Les Banki
Shrill seems to be your standard posting style.  So be it.

The Japanese paper proposed a hypothesis that delivering current entirely within short pulses would over come degradation in electrolysis efficiency particularly in large throughput cells.  The long tails shown in their report are counter to their concept as stated.  Their measurements did not show the improvements they theorized.  this leaves several choices:  Drop the concept.  Attempt to test the concept a different way.  Or, ignore the data and pretend it says things that it does not.  I have proposed that a CDI method as a way to test the concept in a different way.  CDI systems work by charging  modest capacitors to significant voltages, and then discharging into the load typically through an isolation transformer.  Where a flyback delivers I2*L/2 Joules per cycle, a CDI delivers V2*C/2 Joules per cycle.  The principle advantage of a CDI here would be to concentrate the charge and energy delivery into shorter periods of time as proposed in the Japanese paper.  The practical details of any power circuit design are a matter of competency.  While a flyback will theoretically rise to whatever voltage is required to maintain current flow, the right components must be selected or else at a minimum the efficiency will be poor, or worse components will fry.  See for example, John Rohner's many different design iterations.  A CDI is more complex a design undertaking than a typical flyback.  But just as one can't get blood from a turnip, one cannot get a rapid current pulse from an inductor discharging into a low resistance.  That point is reiterated by the most recent paper you've linked from the 2011 World Hydrogen Technologies Convention.

You are free to claim that the Japanese researchers selected inappropriate dimensions and/or electrolyte concentrations.  If you believe that, then repeat their experiments altering them in any way you like to see if you improve upon their results.  I have already provided you with a circuit that overcomes your inability to find the SITs that they used.

H2 is a useful fuel. H2 and CO are the components of syngas.  Each has a faster flame propagation speed and higher combustion temperature than pentane.  The trouble wiht H2 is it isn't something that we find just lying around.  We have to convert some other feed stock, and doing so uses more energy than we are able to extract oxidizing the H2

If when you proclaim:  "Or to the man I have personally known for 20 years who has been running his first "water car" since 1979 and the second one (a large van) since 1998, ..." you are suggesting that water is the fuel for either vehicle: then let's see either of these vehicles.  Let's see how they have broken the laws of physics as they are presently understood.  Of course if you can't actually produce either of these vehicles then your shrill proclamations fall flat.

#### Les Banki

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 82
##### Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
« Reply #74 on: August 10, 2014, 09:08:58 AM »
MarkE,

As I told you before, you are NOT very good at this.....you should TRY to find a different occupation....!

Oh, so you are here to teach me about CDI, eh??
Perhaps you should have checked out my Water Fueled Generator Project (WFGP) before you shoot your big mouth off!

I have worked with "water fuel" for 20 years.
Perhaps you want to teach me about electrolysis, too??
How many electrolysers have you made?

Unlike you, I have NO problem running engines on water.
But YOU have a problem explaining THAT away!

I rest my case.

Have a nice day.

Cheers,
Les Banki