It's more correct to compare salt water to crude oil then it is to compare it to potash based on the arguments you're citing.

Where have I mentioned crude oil, or potash? Water, salty or not, is not a fuel. It can be converted to fuel by the use of energy, and the resulting energy you get from the water-converted-to-gaseous-fuel is _always_ less than the energy needed to convert it in the first place. If you are the US Navy, with nuclear reactors giving you more energy than you can use, but you _can_ use gaseous fuels in your portable vehicles, then accepting the hit in energy may be worthwhile. Most of the energy produced by the Navy's reactors is wasted as unused heat, anyhow. Stand in your backyard with a garden hose on full blast spraying water into the yard. If I come by with a bucket and catch some of the spray for my own use, does that show up on your water bill?

Water is not a fuel, because it is the _ash_ of burning fuel, that is, burning hydrogen. Water is a _low energy state_ of the combined H and O atoms; it takes energy to split the water molecule to yield hydrogen and oxygen gases. If you had a perfect, no-loss-whatsoever system (the magic factor) you could get nearly as much energy back by burning the gases as you put in to split the water in the first place. But there are no perfect, zero loss electrolysis systems or hydrogen or ho-ho-ho burning engines.
Take some white ashes from your fireplace. Get some more energy out of that, why don't you? Nobody would even try, they know it's a waste of time.

Injection of water into the combustion chambers of internal combustion engines, either by direct manifold or cylinder injection or by mixing it with fuel in an emulsion, can have benefits such as increased fuel economy, smoother burning in high-compression supercharged engines, even increased power in such engines that operate at manifold pressures greater than ambient. None of these effects are due to "burning water" though, in fact just the opposite. The water retards explosive combustion (knocking) and promotes even fuel burn. If there is too much water, though, you may have more power than without the water, but your TBO (time between overhauls) will go way down. If you are, say, using your big turbosupercharged radial engine operating at 40 inches of MAP to deliver bombs or food to troops, who cares about TBO, nobody does, that's what mechanics are for. If you are trying to make a consumer-grade economy vehicle, your manipulations had better not cut the lifetime of the engine in half, or your extra power just isn't worth it.

Here's where you say it Einstien!

My repeatedly ignored point is that no one can make definitive or conclusive statements without knowing what is inside the generator.

Speculation is all that can be done until that is determined or the presenter goes into full Hope girl mode.

Regards...

Nobody is ignoring your point, even when you are being your usual insulting self. I am allowed to express my opinion and to state the observable facts upon which that opinion is based. There is no observable fact that supports your repeatedly stated opinion that there could be some alteration or rewiring of any of the COTS components visible in the box. Is there? If there is you haven't stated it, as I have stated my observed facts which support my considered opinion. Feel free to state the observable facts which support your own opinion, at any time.

Nobody is ignoring your point, even when you are being your usual insulting self. I am allowed to express my opinion and to state the observable facts upon which that opinion is based. There is no observable fact that supports your repeatedly stated opinion that there could be some alteration or rewiring of any of the COTS components visible in the box. Is there? If there is you haven't stated it, as I have stated my observed facts which support my considered opinion. Feel free to state the observable facts which support your own opinion, at any time.

It wood seem that presenting evidence which infers that another forum member is a criminal to discredit him in order to gain back lost ground in a debate is something I should just let pass without expressing my disgust.

Well, thats just me being my "usual insulting self".

Now he's just "expressing" his opinion...and I guess he's also free to 'express' his "considered" opinion that Potter is a fraud, read criminal.

Its hard to explain conduct like that away, especially when the same pattern of behavior continues unabated.

But it does serve to divert attention away from "my repeatedly ignored point is that no one can make definitive or conclusive statements without knowing what is inside the generator".

Regards...

Potter is a fraud.  And fraud is a crime.  Any questions?

It wood seem that presenting evidence which infers that another forum member is a criminal to discredit him in order to gain back lost ground in a debate is something I should just let pass without expressing my disgust.

Well, thats just me being my "usual insulting self".

Now he's just "expressing" his opinion...and I guess he's also free to 'express' his "considered" opinion that Potter is a fraud, read criminal.

Its hard to explain conduct like that away, especially when the same pattern of behavior continues unabated.

But it does serve to divert attention away from "my repeatedly ignored point is that no one can make definitive or conclusive statements without knowing what is inside the generator".

Regards...

Yes, we don't know what is inside the magic black box, so you assume that it is indeed something magic and that it works.  Nice failed logic there.  We assume that it does not.  Logic is on our side along with 10,000 years of science and physics.

But, maybe you are right.  We won't "KNOW" until Chet and his people get a look at it.  I, of course, will probably be dead before that happens, and so will you.  But, if you enjoy clinging to false hope, who am I to stop you?

Have at it.

Bill

Yes, we don't know what is inside the magic black box, so you assume that it is indeed something magic and that it works.  Nice failed logic there. 

Bill

Ahar ahar thar...it appears the drunken pirate has come to...I like how he immediately falsely infers that I expressed belief in this device.

Unlike him and his handlers, I'm just not into calling someone a fraud until I see clear evidence of fraud...like I did with the Hope Girl character.

Nobody needed to convince me when I finally saw enough.

Since his post was based on a false premise the rest of it became irrelevant to anything constructive..

Regards...