Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Money makes the world go round => investment scams, warning about fraudulent offers => Topic started by: xjet on July 05, 2008, 03:28:22 AM
-
I'm the guy who posted the HHO Scam video to YouTube (I'm sure most of you have already seen it).
This posting is just to let you know that I've organized a one million dollar prize for the first person who can use one of these HHO setups to consistently produce an improvement in fuel efficiency of 25% or more without causing engine damage.
The details are on the website referred to in the video.
It is now time for those who are making such bold claims to step up to the base and play ball!
-
It is now time for those who are making such bold claims to step up to the base and play ball!
Ya
Right .
As if you have any credibility here.
What oil company is putting up the million?
gary
-
I have three wealthy individuals who are prepared to pay $1m if this technology works as advertised, and no -- they're not part of an oil-company conspiracy.
And I don't know why you'd challenge my credibility, I've done a lot more work in the area of combustion than most here I strongly suspect.
-
What video scam?
What is your website?
Right now you need to prove something then just word!
Also 25% is not enough, a lot of folk already doing better then this, you know, when you use a HHO booster you need to hack the O2 sensor to see a benefit. If you don't allow this kind of modification. I dump any HHO cell will able to do it since you need to do some MOD on the car to make it HHO compliant...
-
What video scam?
What is your website?
The $1m Challenge (http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml)
Right now you need to prove something then just word!
As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and since I'm not the one claiming huge fuel-savings, the burden of proof falls on those who are.
Also 25% is not enough, a lot of folk already doing better then this, you know, when you use a HHO booster you need to hack the O2 sensor to see a benefit. If you don't allow this kind of modification. I dump any HHO cell will able to do it since you need to do some MOD on the car to make it HHO compliant...
But tweaking the O2 sensor causes the car to run lean and thus any fuel-savings are coming from a sacrifice in engine-life and NOx emissions.
However, O2 sensor tweaks will be allowed but if engine-damage or excessive NOx emissions occur as a result then the entry will be disallowed. Given that most of the HHO advocates are claiming *lower* emissions and no damage to your engine, this ought not to be a problem, should it?
-
Those wishing to enter the challenge will have to pay a US$5,000 entry fee, which is obviously pocket-change compared to the $1m that is on offer and will cover the costs associated with running the challenge.
Anyway, this challenge is more for the peoples that live near to you, I dont know where you are btw but I will not waste any penny for that... Since you will do what you can do to destroy the vehicle and since you need to pay a ridiculous amount of money, sound like more like a big scam to make money.
-
Anyway, this challenge is more for the peoples that live near to you, I dont know where you are btw but I will not waste any penny for that... Since you will do what you can do to destroy the vehicle and since you need to pay a ridiculous amount of money, sound like more like a big scam to make money.
As I figured, those making bold claims are unwilling or unable to put them to a truly independent scientific test even when there is the chance to earn a very handsome amount of money. And what's more, there's no way the oil companies can bury this -- so it puts the "oil company conspiracy" claims to the test also.
Such decisions speak volumes for the veracity of those claims. Thanks for playing.
-
lol
You know what you are stupid thinking like that. People like me that have no money anyway, you know you are talking to the people here, don't think someone will pay 5k from there own pocket for this scam.
Even if you pay and have better then 25% and all you will find something to avoid to pay it.
-
lol
You know what you are stupid thinking like that. People like me that have no money anyway, you know you are talking to the people here, don't think someone will pay 5k from there own pocket for this scam.
Even if you pay and have better then 25% and all you will find something to avoid to pay it.
So you're not prepared to stand behind the claims being made for these HHO kits then, fair enough, your choice. Nobody's going to force you to take $1m if you don't want it.
But you must be really rich to turn down a chance like this (or simply be aware you could never achieve the 25% required).
Anyone else?
-
The car will be tuned, checked and prepared by an authorized dealer for the make and model concerned and driven for a month in typical freeway and around-town conditions. The fuel consumption and distance covered will be used to calculate a base-line "real-world" mpg figure.
So the work done on the car is done by a authorized dealer ........no doubt a dealer instructed in making sure things such as the O2 sensor are set to factory specs .......
Yes I know it is illegal to tamper with the O2 sensor ...... I also know WHY it is illegal .........so I really don't give a dam . In this case .......if you have the knowledge it is immoral to be legal.
gary
-
So the work done on the car is done by a authorized dealer ........no doubt a dealer instructed in making sure things such as the O2 sensor are set to factory specs .......
Prior to the installation of the HHO system yes, but after that, no further changes will be made to the vehicles. They must, of course, pass emission tests.
Yes I know it is illegal to tamper with the O2 sensor ...... I also know WHY it is illegal .........so I really don't give a dam . In this case .......if you have the knowledge it is immoral to be legal.
So are you saying that these systems only work if you're prepared to break the law? That does seem a bit of a drawback doesn't it?
Perhaps that might explain why they're not fitted to the cars we drive today as standard equipment? So it's not really an oil-company conspiracy after all then?
-
So you're not prepared to stand behind the claims being made for these HHO kits then, fair enough, your choice. Nobody's going to force you to take $1m if you don't want it.
But you must be really rich to turn down a chance like this (or simply be aware you could never achieve the 25% required).
Anyone else?
To turn down an opportunity like this you must either be really rich ........or have a brain .
Anyone with even half a brain should know that a skeptic that starts a contest about what he is skeptical about has no interest in anyone winning that contest .
It is your contest
It is your rules .
No one will win .
You will see to that .
gary
gary
-
To turn down an opportunity like this you must either be really rich ........or have a brain .
Anyone with even half a brain should know that a skeptic that starts a contest about what he is skeptical about has no interest in anyone winning that contest .
Au contraire.
I would *love* someone to win this challenge because I actually stand to make a *lot* of money if they do - and nothing if they don't. So don't prejudge my bias.
It is your contest
It is my idea, the contest is not "owned" by anyone.
It is your rules .
The rules will be very clearly spelt out and unambiguous. They will not be changed. Unless you can explain why the rules would be unfair, there is no justification for complaint on that ground.
No one will win .
I suspect you're right - but that's not my fault, I didn't come up with the laws of thermodynamics.
You will see to that .
No, as I said, the laws of thermodynamics are not mine.
-
Those wishing to enter the challenge will have to pay a US$5,000 entry fee, which is obviously pocket-change compared to the $1m that is on offer and will cover the costs associated with running the challenge.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are a funny man
This is the best joke I have heard in months
gary
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are a funny man
This is the best joke I have heard in months
Gary, can you remind me -- how much was the entry fee for the X-Prize again?
It's par for the course and stops the tire-kickers from wasting everyone's time.
To anyone who seriously believes they can reliably produce a 25%+ fuel saving it's chicken-feed and well worth the investment.
To those who are aware that the laws of thermodynamics remain immutable and that these claims are just hot air then I agree... you'll probably think it's a joke.
-
If it is a real challenge, the people should be putting the 5k into their ideas to win the money, not into your pocket or to fund the prize money. If you are going to make a load of money from the winner, why charge everyone to enter?
Mark
-
Howdy Y'all,
Only modern vehicles which have engine management computers use oxygen sensors. If you pick out an older car which has a carburetor then you should be able to add the HHO system without worrying about the engine management computer, or the sensors involved with it. Now you may have to alter the carburetor to get the mileage increase you are expecting by changing the jets and idle metering. Are carburetor modifications allowed? And, if they are, would you have to have some measure of performance to ensure that the vehicle is producing the same amount of power with the fuel economy improvement. This is a complex situation. You can make a fuel economy improvement with the sacrifice of power, but who wants that? I want better fuel economy and be able to burn rubber as well. Granted from what I know about HHO, physics, and race cars it is possible to produce a lot more power with a lot less fuel. HHO can go a long way to accomplish that end. There are a lot of people working toward this end and I am interested to see someone win this thing. There are a number of improvements commonly applied to race cars that improve the efficiency dramatically, but they are not street legal, so you cannot modify the family grocery getter with them. One of such improvements is to use nitrous oxide which separates the gasoline molecules and adds oxygen to the mix. This produces a super efficient burn and dramatically improves the power produced. However it is expensive and not street legal, therefore not cost effective to improve the fuel efficiency of the family grocery getter.
I'll get back to you with more ideas...
Blessed Be Brothers...
-
xjet,
hahaha really very funny you are.
... you couldn't even pay for a decent website to have your 1 Million Dollar HHO challenge... you expect us to believe you...
heck, imo you're just one big A**HO**
maybe xjet=enki09=HOAX
-
If it is a real challenge, the people should be putting the 5k into their ideas to win the money, not into your pocket or to fund the prize money. If you are going to make a load of money from the winner, why charge everyone to enter?
Because there are significant expenses involved in running such a challenge.
For a start, there is the cost of the vehicles (which may not be recoverable if they're damaged by the entrant's HHO systems and O2-sensor tampering), the cost of the university tests, the cost of the initial dealer-servicing, the cost of refueling for 6-months, etc, etc.
You might be interested to know that the Google Lunar X-Prize challenge has a $10,000 entry fee (http://news.cnet.com/Google-lunar-challenge-gets-under-way/2100-11397_3-6231576.html) - are they tying to scam people too?
Stop coming up with excuses guys... who's going to stand behind their claims with some real action?
-
It is so funny to watch those who claim that this stuff works scurrying for cover when they're asked to put up some evidence.
-
This is so much like the JREF Million dollar price.
I'll tell you this: give me $50,000 and I will show you a winning HHO fuel economizer in 3 months.
Regards.
-
If it is a real challenge, the people should be putting the 5k into their ideas to win the money, not into your pocket or to fund the prize money. If you are going to make a load of money from the winner, why charge everyone to enter?
Mark
I don't think the prize is going to be funded by the entrants. No one is going to pay $5K unless they have the goods, and so the first person to have the goods will take the million.
-
xjet, I would like to know more about this challenge. If they are requiring the $5,000 to be paid up front, then they are the scam. No one in there right mind would do that.
If trust funds were set up and attorneys were involved, then it may be ok.
-
list the stiptulations of this said contest ....
i really have no intrest in a contest....
im sure it can b done
now go get er done ;D
ist
-
I'm the guy who posted the HHO Scam video to YouTube (I'm sure most of you have already seen it).
This posting is just to let you know that I've organized a one million dollar prize for the first person who can use one of these HHO setups to consistently produce an improvement in fuel efficiency of 25% or more without causing engine damage.
The details are on the website referred to in the video.
It is now time for those who are making such bold claims to step up to the base and play ball!
Look, I don't believe the advertised HHO systems either, but you are going about your contest all wrong.
First, you do not qualify what type of HHO system can be used. So you will probably lose your bet. Now, an HHO-on-demand system, running off the alternator, will not win, but someone can win simply by having a tank of HHO on board to supplement the engine, essentially adding an additional fuel to the system at no cost to the engine. Or, someone could have HHO-on-demand (essentially what is advertised by the hucksters), but use a separate battery for it, which is charged from the grid rather than by the alternator. Either way, depending on how much additional hydrogen is fed into the engine, the car could indeed easily use 25% less gasoline.
Second, the prize money is not secured. I quote your website: "And for those wondering where the one million dollars will come from... I have a number of investors who will be more than happy to front up with the prize-money if the threshold of 25% improvement in fuel efficiency can be achieved." Sorry, but this is nonsense. Either you have the money, or you do not have the money. You cannot expect people to enter your contest unless you can show them you have the money. Promises that your investor friends "will be more than happy" to come up with the money after someone wins is not good enough. What if they change their minds? For an example of how to better do this sort of thing, look at James Randi's prize. Someone already mentioned that, and if you look, you will see how Randi already has the million secured by an independent consulting company.
-
Those wishing to enter the challenge will have to pay a US$5,000 entry fee, which is obviously pocket-change compared to the $1m that is on offer and will cover the costs associated with running the challenge.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are a funny man
This is the best joke I have heard in months
gary
Well,
I moved this thread into the scam area,
as this really seems to be a scam...
Why should you first pay 5000 US$ ?
Look at all the youtube videos e.g. from
Zero fossil fuel and others
who have modified their cars and get increased gas milage.
Normal ICE engines only have around 20 % efficiency.
When you can convert the efficiency to 40 % via an additional
HHO electrolyser, surely your milage will double.
You just convert your gasoline fuel more efficient.
Thus it is very easy to understand.
-
I don't think this is a scam, but a pursuit for solid proof no matter the costs.
I do believe the claims are real and the prize is real, even though the money isn't there yet.
-
First you don't need 5k to test the vehicle, before going into this process they are much simpler test to do such
as run the car with only 3L of gaz, get the distance without using the booster.
Then run the same test again with a booster, if without it you are doing 50km for example, if you go more then 62km with it you have a winner to check more deeply.
Also if you test the unit on your vehicle, why just not use an old vehicle you can pay 1000$ or less, old enough without O2, that will simplify the test... But even that they are some change needed, by adding an HHO unit, you can also decrease the throttle speed because you need less gaz btw.
Anyway why I say its scam, no proof, no site, no instructions, no backup from real peoples (just your word), its just about your trust, since I trust nobody without real proof its going nowhere.
-
First you don't need 5k to test the vehicle, before going into this process they are much simpler test to do such
as run the car with only 3L of gaz, get the distance without using the booster.
Have you not read how the challenge is to be run???
The vehicles will be monitored for SIX months, during which time they will undergo SEVEN lab-tests for fuel-consumption to establish whether the savings are sustained and at the end of that period the engines will be stripped and examined for damage that could result in premature failure (such as an over-lean condition causing piston/valve damage).
Your suggested tests are extremely simplistic and mean that someone could come along, tweak the ECU to produce the leanest possible mixture and show a significant improvement in fuel-efficiency -- at the cost of engine reliability and longevity.
A fuel-saving system that saves you $500 in fuel but costs you $1,500 in engine repairs is not a practical system.
Also if you test the unit on your vehicle, why just not use an old vehicle you can pay 1000$ or less, old enough without O2, that will simplify the test... But even that they are some change needed, by adding an HHO unit, you can also decrease the throttle speed because you need less gaz btw.
Because, to be fair to all entrants, it's important that the vehicles are of identical, make, model, mileage and age. This means a relatively new, low mileage vehicle is the only way to ensure that everyone starts out on a level playing field. If the cars were hi-mileage there's a real chance that some entering the challenge would say that *their* vehicle was faulty or had some unseen problem right from the start.
Anyway why I say its scam, no proof, no site, no instructions, no backup from real peoples (just your word), its just about your trust, since I trust nobody without real proof its going nowhere.
You mean like those "Run Your Car On Water" sites on the internet?
You mean like all those over-unity scams that show nothing more than YouTube videos and a whole lot of faux-science on website somewhere yet, despite the fact that they should be changing the world in which we live, aren't actually in production?
Let's face it, if one of the challengers *can* come up with a simple, practical system that provides a 25%+ fuel saving without compromising emissions or engine-life then it is worth a whole lot more than $1m to car-makers. And don't roll out that old BS about the car companies being in league with the oil companies to suppress this information.
If the challenge is won, the world-wide publicity will ensure that such a conspiracy could never survive because the public would demand that it be fitted as standard equipment in all new vehicles.
I would have thought that if there was anywhere that such a challenge would be embraced by people with open minds it would be on a site like this - but I guess I was wrong.
The very fact that the challenge itself has been labeled a scam and moved to the scam area of the forums indicates that there are perhaps the only people who don't want the truth about whether this technology works or not revealed are those who know it doesn't work.
I have to say I'm more than a little disappointed -- but not surprised.
However, as I suspected, the challenge will only interest those who actually believe this HHO technology really works. Those who know it doesn't will go out of their way to try and discredit it.
-
Since its cost 5k, 99.9999999% will not even able to participate you eliminate all the peoples that just have no money to participate.
Yes they are some Cell that claim false result, I am aware of that. I don't really care about them because I ignore them. All need to do some research before buying there, its more simple to do it anyway and cost much much less.
On my last vehicle, that was a jeep v8, i was getting 15L/100km at the begining, I changed a lot of stuffs without even adding the HHO cell and at the end I was getting 10L/100km. So its quite easy to make better mileage anyway I have done it, so anybody can do it.
I think anyway that HHO cell is not really the way to go, better to convert your car with electricity (EV) or use water as fuel like the new thread on this forum is all about without any HHO cell.
-
I think anyway that HHO cell is not really the way to go, better to convert your car with electricity (EV) or use water as fuel like the new thread on this forum is all about without any HHO cell.
Which thread is that?
-
I'm pretty sure this is a scam. Xjet held a bet with some friends that he could scam us who are the "real" scammers, just to prove how stupid we are. He forgot though that this is a free energy forum. Even though there are greedy people here the majority wouldn't care about this crap. No one needs to prove anything. You share your ideas and go home that's how it works. We're not looking to make millions, we looking to make the world a better place.
Xjet go try some guy with a patent I think he'd be delighted to be scammed.
-
This one but its not in the car stage yet :http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5024.520.html
The idea is to upgrade the car ignite system to burn water instead of gaz directly in the cylinder using plasma from the spark plug.
-
Even though there are greedy people here the majority wouldn't care about this crap. No one needs to prove anything. You share your ideas and go home that's how it works. We're not looking to make millions, we looking to make the world a better place.
Indeed its not about making million but making a better world but sure making one million is not bad too ;)
-
xjet,
You must be a complete idiot.
Everyone knows standard cars can run off of Hydrogen. They did a Mythbusters episode on it.
Everyone knows electrolysis makes hydrogen, and depending on how well you make the cell, you can mix that with your air intake, and you up your mileage.
You already lost your money in scientific theory!!!
LOL idiot!
There are, as we speak, 1000's of tractor trailer 16 wheeler diesel trucks running hydrogen "boosters".
All gas engines need oxygen to run! All gas engines need to mix air/fuel to run! Now add some hydrogen to the air/fuel mixture and you have less gas mileage! Did you know that air that is injected in gas engines contains WATER?! It's called humidity. Car's deal with it all the time.
Running a hydrogen booster is like running your car in high humidity and or rainy days!!
You lost all your FAKE money!! LOL!!
-
This one but its not in the car stage yet :http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5024.520.html
The idea is to upgrade the car ignite system to burn water instead of gaz directly in the cylinder using plasma from the spark plug.
Now this is something I have researched and I have to say that Stan Meyer was nothing but a scammer, indeed he was found guilty of fraud (and no this wasn't a conspiracy either).
The energy required to dissociate the atoms of a water molecule in this way is still more than the energy recovered by recombining them back into water.
This is a dead-end, unless you believe that the laws of thermodynamics are easily broken.
If you guys really want to look at how over-unity production *might* be possible then you've got to stop working in a world of Newtonian physics where the laws of thermodynamics will thwart your every move.
Perhaps the only chance there is of some form of over-unity is where you rely on quantum effects. Unfortunately, quantum effects are (by their very definition) so small as to be a totally impractical source of energy at this stage of our technological development and our understanding in this field is very much in its infancy.
At some stage in the future, it may well be possible that we will harness some aspect of quantum mechanics as a source of energy but it's not going to be done on a kitchen-table using tools and techniques that are constrained by Newtonian physics.
By all means, experiment, enjoy, learn -- but please remember that nobody (including far greater minds with far greater learning, understanding and resources) has yet to thwart the laws of thermodynamics and the days when earth-shattering scientific breakthroughs were made in a garage workshop are (unfortunately) long-gone.
Even if you've got your own Large Hadron Collider you'll still be no better off, unless you've also got an intimate understanding of what you're doing, what you're trying to achieve and what you're seeing in the data returned.
Neither magnets, nor fat sparks, nor jamjars filled with water and baking soda are going to produce any unexpected or unexplained results. Even Ponns and Fleischman made the mistake of thinking that a simple electrolysis-like device could change the world - but they simply wanted to believe so bad that it affected the quality of their science. Just wishing it were so won't make it so.
-
If you guys really want to look at how over-unity production *might* be possible then you've got to stop working in a world of Newtonian physics where the laws of thermodynamics will thwart your every move.
What does using water to get a 25% increase in gas mileage have anything to do with "overunity"????
No one is claiming "free energy"...
Look at your post:
I'm the guy who posted the HHO Scam video to YouTube (I'm sure most of you have already seen it).
This posting is just to let you know that I've organized a one million dollar prize for the first person who can use one of these HHO setups to consistently produce an improvement in fuel efficiency of 25% or more without causing engine damage.
The details are on the website referred to in the video.
It is now time for those who are making such bold claims to step up to the base and play ball!
It doesn't say anything about overunity! You are asking for a 25% increase in fuel efficiency..... That's a whole different ballgame that you already lost!
You sir, are a fool!
-
xjet,
You must be a complete idiot.
Incorrect, I believe there are parts of me that are missing.
Everyone knows standard cars can run off of Hydrogen. They did a Mythbusters episode on it.
Very true -- I saw that episode. They had a *huge* hydrogen tank and a tube fed into the carburetor with quite a significant rate of flow.
And strangely enough, when they tried to run the car from an electrolysis cell it wouldn't even fire. Or did you fall asleep before that part of the very same episode?
Everyone knows electrolysis makes hydrogen, and depending on how well you make the cell, you can mix that with your air intake, and you up your mileage.
Sigh. I would have thought that at least some of those here might have had the most rudimentary understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation but clearly this most basic concept of physics is clearly way over your head.
Go to my website and read the very simple math that shows the folly of your suggestion:
http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml
If you can follow the simple math, you'll understand why it's not possible to recover the energy it took to create that hydrogen by electrolysis but here's a simple summary for you:
Take 1 unit of mechanical energy from the car's engine (used to drive the alternator).
Multiply that by the efficiency of the alternator (0.65) = 0.65 units of energy
Now use that energy to run an electrolysis cell and split the water into H2/O2. This has an efficiency of probably around 0.60 so now our original unit of energy is just: 0.39 units.
Now use that hydrogen in the car's engine to create power - remembering that an internal combustion engine has an efficiency of 0.24 or so. Now you have recovered just 0.0936 (less than 10%) of the energy you used. Such a system is 90% *inefficient*.
You already lost your money in scientific theory!!!
I think you have no idea of the science involved in such things.
LOL idiot!
Ah, now there's no arguing against the power of your magnificent intellect :-)
There are, as we speak, 1000's of tracker trailer 16 wheeler diesel trucks running hydrogen "boosters".
And there are also thousands running magnetic fuel savers, intake turbulators and a raft of other bugus fuel-saver devices. Just because people are stupid enough to use them doesn't mean they work.
Heard of The Emperor's New Clothes?
All gas engines need oxygen to run! All gas engines need to mix air/fuel to run! Now add some hydrogen to the air/fuel mixture and you have less gas mileage!
Only if you didn't add more load to the engine than you returned as fuel - which *isn't* the case with these hydrogen electrolysis cells (as I proved with my math above).
Did you know that air that is injected in gas engines contains WATER?! It's called humidity. Car's deal with it all the time.
No, it's called water vapor, humidity is the ratio of actual water vapor to maximum water vapor before condensation occurs. Even if you don't understand the science, at least get the terminology right.
Running a hydrogen booster is like running your car in high humidity and or rainy days!!
Then why not just inject water vapor and save all the hassle of electrolysis?
You lost all your FAKE money!! LOL!!
As I said, there's simply no way to rationally argue against an intellect as large as yours.
-
What does using water to get a 25% increase in gas mileage have anything to do with "overunity"????
No one is claiming "free energy"...
Well given that MIT research (conducted by Heywood) was only able to establish a maximum of 10% improvement in thermal efficiency using hydrogen injection (under *ideal* conditions), then where does the extra 15% of energy come from?
It doesn't say anything about overunity! You are asking for a 25% increase in fuel efficiency..... That's a whole different ballgame that you already lost!
To improve fuel efficiency you must be adding energy - where is that energy coming from?
You sir, are a fool!
And you "sir" keep making claims without evidence. That's not good science, that's BS (bad science)
-
Incorrect, I believe there are parts of me that are missing.
Yeah you are missing your brain! A "complete idiot" is a man without a brain! Just like you!
Very true -- I saw that episode. They had a *huge* hydrogen tank and a tube fed into the carburetor with quite a significant rate of flow.
And strangely enough, when they tried to run the car from an electrolysis cell it wouldn't even fire. Or did you fall asleep before that part of the very same episode?
Did you even pay attention? Do you know the difference between "100% hydrogen", and a "hydrogen booster"??
On Mythbusters, they tried to run a car with 100% hydrogen only with a fuel cell. No sh!t that won't work. What Mythbusters didn't try was to "BOOST" a gas car with a hydrogen/gasoline mix, which is what your wannabe million dollar challenge is about. Do you understand the difference yet?
Sigh. I would have thought that at least some of those here might have had the most rudimentary understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation but clearly this most basic concept of physics is clearly way over your head.
I invented f*king ANTI-GRAVITY, and I know every single THEORY that you ever read about. I have 23 inventions, how many do you have?
Go to my website and read the very simple math that shows the folly of your suggestion:
If you can follow the simple math, you'll understand why it's not possible to recover the energy it took to create that hydrogen by electrolysis but here's a simple summary for you:
Take 1 unit of mechanical energy from the car's engine (used to drive the alternator).
Multiply that by the efficiency of the alternator (0.65) = 0.65 units of energy
Now use that energy to run an electrolysis cell and split the water into H2/O2. This has an efficiency of probably around 0.60 so now our original unit of energy is just: 0.39 units.
I underlined your flaw! Electrolysis is the process of using BRUTE FORCE ELECTRICITY to split water. Electrolysis is like using dynamite to open a locked door, when you can just use a KEY!
There is a new method where you use HEAT to weaken the electromagnetic bond between the H and O. Yes, heat is proven to make magnetic fields "weak". It's also proven that freezing magnets will make the fields "strong". Think of water like frozen magnets. When you heat the water, you are making their electromagnetic bond "weak", that is why it becomes a gas! When you turn water to a gas with heat, and then you need LESS ELECTRICITY TO MAKE HYDROGEN! This is 90% more efficient then TRADITIONAL electrolysis!!
Dumb ass!
Then why not just inject water vapor and save all the hassle of electrolysis?
The only reason I was talking about humidity and water vapor, is because you believe for some reason that a car will "get damaged" when using a hydrogen booster, and so I was proving to you that there will be NO DAMAGE. Heck, I can show you water coming out of tail pipes of gas engines right now!
Also, too much oxygen, and your fuel won't ignite. It's called "running rich". That is why you need to disassociate the water.
As I said, there's simply no way to rationally argue against an intellect as large as yours.
You will NEVER win an argument against me, you are old school, I am new school. I know everything that you DON'T! Retire already old dog, you can't learn any new tricks!
-
Now use that energy to run an electrolysis cell and split the water into H2/O2.
I allways was told that "Water" was two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen , thus H2O. The only thing I know of that has two parts Hydrogen and two parts Oxygen is Hydrogen Peroxide, H2O2. What exactly are you wanting to electrolyse H2O or H2O2 they are diffrent or so I was told in school ? H2O2 can be used in rocket fuel no octane there huh ?
-
Yeah you are missing your brain! A "complete idiot" is a man without a brain! Just like you
I invented f*king ANTI-GRAVITY, and I know every single THEORY that you ever read about. I have 23 inventions, how many do you have?
Dumb ass!
You will NEVER win an argument against me, you are old school, I am new school. I know everything that you DON'T! Retire already old dog, you can't learn any new tricks!
I think you've just said more about yourself, your objectivity, your level of understanding and your maturity than I ever could.
Thanks for playing.
-
I allways was told that "Water" was two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen , thus H2O. The only thing I know of that has two parts Hydrogen and two parts Oxygen is Hydrogen Peroxide, H2O2. What exactly are you wanting to electrolyse H2O or H2O2 they are diffrent or so I was told in school ? H2O2 can be used in rocket fuel no octane there huh ?
LOL, he doesn't even know the difference between hydrogen peroxide and water! ::) :D :D :D
Good catch.
-
I allways was told that "Water" was two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen , thus H2O. The only thing I know of that has two parts Hydrogen and two parts Oxygen is Hydrogen Peroxide, H2O2. What exactly are you wanting to electrolyse H2O or H2O2 they are diffrent or so I was told in school ? H2O2 can be used in rocket fuel no octane there huh ?
When you split water (H2O) using electrolysis you produce hydrogen gas (H2) and oxygen gas (O2) in a 2:1 ratio. 2(H2O) -> 2(H2)+O2
Despite what some (in their naivety) may believe, you do not get nascent hydrogen coming out of an electrolysis cell and there is no such thing as HHO. The only time two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen are bonded at normal temperatures is in the form of water H2O. HHO is a chemical impossibility and simply an "invention" of those who wish to use BS to try and add credibility to their incredible claims for the products of electrolysis.
-
LOL, he doesn't even know the difference between hydrogen peroxide and water! ::) :D :D :D
Good catch.
LOL you don't even know the difference between H2/O2 and H2O2 ::) :D :D :D
Good catch eh?
Not only do you seem to have a problem with basic science, it appears that you can't read either. I'm sorry but you are clearly way out of your depth here.
Instead of cluttering this discussion with your puerile rants and obvious ignorance, how about you leave it to those who know what they're talking about so that some useful information can flow?
-
xjet, you are aware that you can design a fuel cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell)) that only collects H2 right? Are you also aware, that unless you make H2 in a vacuum, there will ALWAYS be oxygen present... right?
Also, do you not believe I invented anti-gravity? Or would you like me to drop a 30ton block on your head? Or maybe you can take a look at Coral Castle, the guy that created it, Ed Leedskalnin, told me how to do it!
Also, it seems you are way out of your league. Since you don't even know basic science! Do you think electrolysis is a LAW? Because if you do, then you are an idiot. Electrolysis is not 0NE method, nor is there 0NE way to make hydrogen with electricity... some reason your empty skull doesn't realize that.
p.s. have you ever herd of the "reverse casimir effect"?
probably not...
oh and if you want overunity, check out my magnet battery..
http://www.lawofmagnetism.com/magbat.html
More energy out.. no energy in. Wow overunity!
I deal with theories you don't even know about yet.
-
oh and if you want overunity, check out my magnet battery..
http://www.lawofmagnetism.com/magbat.html
More energy out.. no energy in. Wow overunity!
I deal with theorys you don't even know about yet.
Sigh....
Another basic mistake that people who know very little about *true* science often make.
Here's a useful reference to describe how your "magnetic" battery is really working:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_cell
Hint.. there is moisture in the skin of your fingers and metals from which the keeper and magnet are made are not identical -- hence a galvanic potential is created.
The effect is even greater when you use a water-soaked tissue because the water is acting as an electrolyte.
For goodness sake man, instead of telling us how "clever" you are you're simply showing your incredible ignorance of basic science and making yourself look foolish. And whenever you're about to make another stunning announcement as to how you've come up with some silly piece of pseudo-science, take a moment to reflect on Occam's Razor.
Your "magnetic battery" web-page would send anyone with even a modicum of scientific knowledge into fits of laughter. Now stop it and go do your homework.
-
Here's a useful reference to describe how your "magnetic" battery is really working:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_cell
WRONG!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQHLtSDwtyc
I have already proven it is not galvanic! doh! where are you gonna run now huh? Your theories don't explain this! wow! what are you going to do now? LOL
Yeah go read about triboelectrical effects and magnetostatics, and you will still not figure it out LOL.
-
WRONG!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQHLtSDwtyc
I have already proven it is not galvanic! doh! where are you gonna run now huh? Your theorys don't explain this! wow! what are you going to do now? LOL
Okay, repeat the test *without* a magnet but with another piece of dissimilar metal. You might be surprised at what you see.
And remember, *true* science involves using controls and repeatable experiments. There's none of that here. Where is the control experiment using a non-magnetic material? How many times was this experiment repeated and what was the voltage read/mean/average/SD?
Have you accounted for stray external magnetic fields (which often introduce voltages as high as tens or even hundreds of mV in conductors some distance from the source -- remember Tesla???) after all, you're inside a giant coil of mains-wiring while your in a house or workshop so capacitive/inductive pickup is almost a certainty. Have you conducted the experiment inside a magnetically shielded environment to discount such effects?
Before you can make a statement as bold as "My explanation will involve things not yet known by traditional science" you must first know a little about traditional science -- which you clearly don't. You can only claim "unknown" after you've eliminated all the "know" causes - which you obviously haven't because you don't even know half of the conventional science involved.
Also, with a mind as closed as yours, I doubt you'll ever learn anything new.
-
xjet,
I know everything about static electricity and electricity in general, I know everything about magnetostatics, I know everything that you ever learned. Yes, I know your theories. I also know OTHER theories.
Do you truly believe that your theories explain all of the world? Do you truly believe that you know everything about the universe and there is nothing left to discover? Did it ever cross your mind that there is more than 1 way to explain things, and still be correct?
Maybe you should EXPERIMENT instead of using your missing brain.
Or maybe you should try reading:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4762.0.html
Let me ask you a question...
What is a magnetic field? Is it a wave, or is it particles? {whistles jeopardy theme song}
p.s. I can replicate ALL of Teslas inventions, and inventions he didn't get a chance to release. I can also explain the double slit experiment, can you?
-
I note you nicely avoided answering the questions I asked - I wonder why?
I know everything about static electricity and electricity in general, I know everything about magnetostatics, I know everything that you ever learned. Yes, I know your theories. I also know OTHER theories.
The first thing that intelligent people with an interest in science learn is that they actually know very little. Clearly you haven't reached that stage yet.
Do you truly believe that your theories explain all of the world? Do you truly believe that you know everything about the universe and there is nothing left to discover?
No, that's a claim that only you seem to be making.
Maybe you should EXPERIMENT instead of using your missing brain.
Do you even know who I am or what I do? I suspect not.
p.s. I can replicate ALL of Teslas inventions, and inventions he didn't get a chance to release. I can also explain the double slit experiment, can you?
I strongly suspect you can explain *anything* because you don't have to deal with annoying little issues like *facts*. In your world, things are exactly as *you* describe them - despite the laws and facts that rule the world the rest of us must live in.
-
I note you nicely avoided answering the questions I asked - I wonder why?
Because I pointed you to a link that answeres them all!! DOH! Man you are an idiot!
The first thing that intelligent people with an interest in science learn is that they actually know very little. Clearly you haven't reached that stage yet.
No, you don't understand (like usual), I know ALL OF YOUR THEORIES ABOUT EVERYTHING. Yes, I know every single thing that you know, and more. I never once claimed to know everything about everything, but I know everything about your theories.
No, that's a claim that only you seem to be making.
I do have a "theory of everything" that can explain all supernatural and paranormal, and everything else. Yes I build computers for fun, I am a software/electrical/mechanical/everything engineer. I study EVERYTHING.
Do you even know who I am or what I do? I suspect not.
I don't care. You are nobody. You are a bunch of words on the screen. For all I know you are a wannabe aeronautical engineer, that thinks he is a top dog. Right Bruce Simpson? Oh wow I even know your name... LOL.
I strongly suspect you can explain *anything* because you don't have to deal with annoying little issues like *facts*. In your world, things are exactly as *you* describe them - despite the laws and facts that rule the world the rest of us must live in.
I know all your facts, I also know why your missiles have so much drag! That's because you have no clue that static electricity is created when you fly through air, and static charges are attracted to Earth. Doh! You are a wannabe rocket scientist, talking to someone who knows The Secret of The Universe.
You are nobody.
-
As I said earlier, people will judge you by your words and I think that nothing I can say will paint a more disturbing picture than the one you've painted of yourself.
And while I have enjoyed the discussion, I now grow tired of engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Let's get back to the topic that this thread is supposed to be about. I've had enough laughter for one day.
-
LOL, go ahead and judge me by my words. Then I will know you are underestimating me, which gives me that advantage over you. Which is exactly what I planned.
Sure lets get back onto the topic I already destroyed.
Answer this Bruce:
What is magnetic force? Waves, or particles?
Then answer this, why is water diamagnetic?
-
What is magnetic force? Waves, or particles?
Then answer this, why is water diamagnetic?
As I said ... off-topic, move along please. Start a different thread if you want to exercise your massive brain. Thank you.
-
It's not off topic, I am challenging your 0ne Million Dollar HHO Challenge. But how can I challenge it when you don't even know the basics?
If you don't know why water is diamagnetic, then how are you ever going to believe when the real deal is right in front of your face?
If you don't know why magnetism is involved, then you don't know the TRUE method for water dissociation.
Answer the questions please...
-
Answer the questions please...
Sorry, you still owe me a few answers from earlier in the thread and I'm not interested in discussing your bogus BS. Now go away and stop destroying the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread.
-
Bogus?
Is it not true that water is diamagnetic? Is it not true that protons, electrons, and neutrons have electromagnetic interactions? Do you understand how this information could help with the production of hydrogen gas?
Answer the questions...
What if I told you a way to disassotiate water without electricity? You know that exists right? Do you know WHY it exists? Do you know how to amplify that reaction?
.....
If you can't answer that, then answer this:
How are you going to scientificaly test the devices from the HHO challenge? Are you going to scientificaly figure it out? Or are you just going to look at it, and say it does or doesn't work?
Do you know anything about diamagnetic water?
Do you know why water absorbs sunlight? Do you know why radar's in military aircraft show complete darkness while over the ocean? Do you know ANYTHING about water? Do you know anything about Alchemy?
-
To those who are aware that the laws of thermodynamics remain immutable and that these claims are just hot air then I agree... you'll probably think it's a joke.
Has anyone taken you up on the challenge yet? Not discounting mob psychology, but there are a lot of people scattered around the globe all claiming some degree of success.
As to the issue of getting usable hydrogen from electrolysis... doesn't sound to far fetched to me, if my opinion counts for anything. Heck, I've even seen an atomic hydrogen welder in use, in total defiance of the laws of thermodynamics.
-
Has anyone taken you up on the challenge yet? Not discounting mob psychology, but there are a lot of people scattered around the globe all claiming some degree of success.
No, nobody has even pre-registered. With all those wild claims being made and the chance to score an easy $1m, it kind of makes you wonder why doesn't it?
As to the issue of getting usable hydrogen from electrolysis... doesn't sound to far fetched to me, if my opinion counts for anything.
No, you're quite right - electrolysis is a perfectly viable way to extract hydrogen from oxygen and it's a technology that's been around since the 1800s.
Heck, I've even seen an atomic hydrogen welder in use, in total defiance of the laws of thermodynamics.
Why would it be "in total defiance of the laws of thermodynamics"?
So long as the gas being generated didn't produce more energy than it took to create it, the laws of thermodynamics remain intact.
Jewelers often use electrolysis to generate H2 and O2 for use in small torches when welding precious metals such as silver and gold. Not only is it cheaper than using gases such as acetylene but there's also no chance of carbon-contamination of the weld.
However, for welding other metals such as steel, there are too many problems such as a low calorific output and hydrogen embrittlement make things like Klein's Aquagen system a practical alternative to existing technologies (despite what Klein might say).
-
So long as the gas being generated didn't produce more energy than it took to create it, the laws of thermodynamics remain intact.
Those hydrogen torches, when you burn something, it creates water. That water can then be collected and guided back into the water tank. Isn't that producing more energy then it took?
I'm pretty sure it is.
Especially when the torch flame can heat water, and make a steam engine powerful enough to run a generator, which then makes the hydrogen, and then back to water, then back to the water tank, and over and over again..
You will run out of water soon enough, but I'm pretty sure there is more energy coming out then in. Heat energy can be used multiple ways.
-
It's funny,
I can create a hydrogen flame with a 12 volt battery and water, and that flame could melt gold.
Although, without water, and only with a 12 volt battery, I can NOT melt gold. (like arc welding).
Wouldn't this mean more energy is coming out then what is going in?
-
Those hydrogen torches, when you burn something, it creates water. That water can then be collected and guided back into the water tank. Isn't that producing more energy then it took?
I'm pretty sure it is.
Only if you don't count the ELECTRICITY it took to perform the electrolysis (sigh!). Go away, your ignorance and arrogance is starting to be annoying.
-
I don't know who this "xjet" dude is but .......... Mr. Simpson if this is you explain this ..............
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://news.epochtimes.com/gb/3/12/6/n424967.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522aardvark.com.nz%2522%26hl%3Den
These are "OIL COUNTRIES" your in bed with or ......... so it seems ......... rockets ......... WTF.......... ??????
It looks like your web site www.aardvark.com.nz or at least I can't get on, whats with that ?????
-
I don't know who this "xjet" dude is but .......... Mr. Simpson if this is you explain this ..............
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://news.epochtimes.com/gb/3/12/6/n424967.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522aardvark.com.nz%2522%26hl%3Den
These are "OIL COUNTRIES" your in bed with or ......... so it seems ......... rockets ......... WTF.......... ??????
It looks like your web site www.aardvark.com.nz or at least I can't get on, whats with that ?????
That's a very amusing (but rather incorrect) report.
My website is http://aardvark.co.nz
And my other site is: http://interestingprojects.com
Have a read.
-
That's a very amusing (but rather incorrect) report.
I'm an American and I'm NOT LAUGHING ! OR THINK THIS IS FUNNY !
-
So long as the gas being generated didn't produce more energy than it took to create it, the laws of thermodynamics remain intact.
In the Arc Atomic-Hydrogen process, a flame is generated from Hydrogen gas passing through a HV arc. The heat of the flame in this particular effect is on the order of hundreds of times the magnitude expected from a simple Hydrogen burn.
Quoting Bearden on the Arc Atomic-Hydrogen reaction:
"The point is that any charge produces a continuous flow of real, usable EM energy from the vacuum. Thermodynamically we are describing a nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS) system, and such a system is permitted to continuously emit energy (received from its environment). The charge also falsifies the present second law of thermodynamics to any size level and time duration desired, because the emitted photons do form deterministic EM fields and potentials as a function of radial distance. One calculates the field intensity and potential intensity at any radial point, by a deterministic formula -- not by the use of statistics."
The information is highly available around the web, and if you don't trust Tom Bearden, there are UNLV and Cambridge researchers who've published findings that come up in the same google query.
As stated before, I've seen it, in person and it is very impressive. Too bad this technology was essentially wiped away from modern countries 60+ years ago in favor of more energy consuming methods. Of course, this type of reaction would probably cremate a combustion engine, so the concept is not necessarily apropos to the topic. I was merely commenting upon your reliance on the stated laws of thermodynamics.
-
I'm an American and I'm NOT LAUGHING ! OR THINK THIS IS FUNNY !
Then you ought to read more about it and you'll realize that the DIY Cruise Missile project may well have saved lives by highlighting the risk factor and making authorities more aware of the potential for such things to be built by terrorists.
Has their been a DIY cruise missile attack? No. Perhaps their would have been if this project hadn't raised government and public awareness of the risk.
However, this too is off-topic in this thread -- with the exception that clearly I *do* know quite a bit about combustion, physics, chemistry, electronics and engineering. Points that ought to be considered when our little "master of the universe" is making derogatory comments and questioning my understanding of things ;-)
-
::) ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZllEFERJBXc
-
It's funny,
I can create a hydrogen flame with a 12 volt battery and water, and that flame could melt gold.
Although, without water, and only with a 12 volt battery, I can NOT melt gold. (like arc welding).
Wouldn't this mean more energy is coming out then what is going in?
You know, for someone who has just a few posts ago essentially claimed that he knows everything about everything related to science, you sure do seem clueless about the most basic of things.
Can you spot the flaw with your own logic?
Assuming everything you say is true, no, it does not mean there is more energy out than in. A very brief but intense heat could require less overall energy than a longer, but less intense flame. So no, you have not more energy out than in yet. There are a few more measurements to make.
-
In the Arc Atomic-Hydrogen process, a flame is generated from Hydrogen gas passing through a HV arc. The heat of the flame in this particular effect is on the order of hundreds of times the magnitude expected from a simple Hydrogen burn.
Quoting Bearden on the Arc Atomic-Hydrogen reaction:
And that's where you lost my interest.
Like so many before him, Bearden is a pseudo-scientist who has really lost touch with reality.
Here's the bottom line question you must ask yourself "Why isn't this technology being used now?"
And inevitably, when faced with such a logical and inescapable conclusion (because it doesn't actually work), those who blindly follow this pseudo-science will spout "conspiracy" or that it was "burried by the goverment/oil-companies/mafia/my-dog" or something equally as stupid).
Now I've had some rather nasty dealings with the US and NZ governments. I know the levels they can stoop to (breaking the law) in order to achieve the results they want. But even *I* don't believe those conspiracy theories, especially today when we have the internet.
If *any* of these crazy over-unity systems worked, then there would be people in China downloading this stuff and building it like crazy.
Instead, China remains the single largest user of oil and other fossil fuels on the planet.
Why do you think that is?
The Chinese are (and always have been) a *very* clever race of people -- they invented the rocket thousands of years before the USA put a man in space for goodness sake.
Do you really think that the US (or any other) government has the power to suppress Chinese use of over-unity power devices?
Do you really think that China would be spending billions of dollars on importing oil and coal when they could have all these wonderful over-unity devices providing more energy than they could ever need? And surely they'd at least have all their cars fitted with jam-jars and baking soda so as to reduce pollution for the Olympic games and slash their transport fuel bill by 50% or more.
Come on people - it's wonderful to talk about over-unity and the dream of getting a free lunch by breaching the laws of thermodynamics but the reality is that it simply has never been done (despite all those hoax YouTube videos and the snake-oil merchants who claim they've done it).
Numerous challenges have been offered which could earn *anyone* with proof of over-unity energy generation a *fortune* have come and gone with no winners -- yet this stuff is published freely on the net. So how come nobody has every claimed those prizes and the wealth that accompanies them?
Even today, if you could reliably demonstrate over-unity power generation you would undoubtedly qualify for a Nobel prize in physics, and the not inconsiderable amount of money that accompanies such an honor.
But I see not one person fronting up to claim that prize.
Wake up folks. Enjoy the experiments, the fun, the playing around -- but don't suggest that you've defied the laws of physics unless you can deliver irrefutable evidence to prove those claims. And so far, *nobody* has done that. All we have are the pseudoscientific ramblings of people who claim their ideas have been suppressed or they've been subjected to death-threats or whatever - and some really lame websites that spout nothing but BS with a few links to studies that support only a very *tiny* and inconsequential part of their theories. Yes you can get H2 from water by electrolysis - but don't use this to support your claims of over-unity energy production - that's BS.
Or have I got this wrong?
I guess now *I* am part of a government-led conspiracy to try and discredit all the over-unity discoveries that exist out there and are being covered-up by every man and his dog.
-
Yes you can get H2 from water by electrolysis - but don't use this to support your claims of over-unity energy production - that's BS.
Or have I got this wrong?
I guess now *I* am part of a government-led conspiracy to try and discredit all the over-unity discoveries that exist out there and are being covered-up by every man and his dog.
Yes, you got me wrong. Sorry I pissed you off, you should have read past the word "Bearden," there were a few more sentences in my post. And no, for the record, I was not stating that hydrogen electrolysis has anything to do with over-unity.
Anyway, I tried to contact you via your website for more information, but after submitting my questions it simply hangs.
Regards.
-
Yes, you got me wrong. Sorry I pissed you off, you should have read past the word "Bearden," there were a few more sentences in my post. And no, for the record, I was not stating that hydrogen electrolysis has anything to do with over-unity.
No worries.. I don't get "pissed off" - life's too short :-)
I just can't believe that so many people in the world would rather believe the unsubstantiated ramblings of those who have very little understanding of true science yet claim to have defied the laws of physics which have enabled us to fly around the globe in jet-aircraft, put a man on the moon and deliver robotic rovers to Mars. Even when confronted with the most simple logic (such as the picture I painted in my other reply regarding the Chinese situation), they continue to ignore the obvious and hang on to the snake-oil.
Indeed, I wrote about this Faith versus Fact (http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2008/0529.shtml) strangeness just recently, in respect to these HHO scams on the Net.
I really would like to hear from those here who claim that there *are* over-unity designs out there and that they believe this stuff.
Why do they believe it?
Why do they think that the creators of these devices aren't filthy-rich now?
If they say "conspiracy" then why aren't the Chinese using this technology?
And why aren't some of the USA's enemies (N.Korea for instance) using and pushing this technology in an attempt to destabilize the US economy?
How many excuses can "the faithful" come up with for avoiding the obvious implications of Occam's Razor?
Anyway, I tried to contact you via your website for more information, but after submitting my questions it simply hangs.
Shouldn't do -- I get several emails an hour through that contact form. You can always email me direct at dontspam at yahoo.com
-
No worries.. I don't get "pissed off" - life's too short :-)
No, let me retract that.
I *AM* pissed off that this the thread on a valid technology challenge has been dumped in the "investment scams, warning about fraudulent offers" forum while a discussion on the *real* scam (HHO systems for cars) isn't.
Clearly the admin doesn't want any challenge to the "beliefs" of the faithful and wishes to discredit anyone that actually requests a little proof of the extraordinary claims being made.
And they say that the mainstream are the ones with the closed minds. The word hypocrisy springs to mind here.
-
And why aren't some of the USA's enemies (N.Korea for instance) using and pushing this technology in an attempt to destabilize the US economy?
Media and government are, by your own admission, often capable of sinking to the lowest of levels to suppress information for their own benefit/agenda. Who says China, Iran, N. Korea or other "axis of evil" nations (pun, not my words) are not developing/using this type of technology? If it's merely a quest for truth, I'd lay money that every modern government on earth is actively involved in alternate energy research these days.
I believe we are all trying to be a bit too deterministic here, whilst forgetting that Occam's razor is equally sharp in both directions. And if Occam decides not to weigh in, Damocles and his sword will. You are of one opinion; HHO fuel advocates are of another. Let's put our collective passion toward solving what is easily a crisis of epic proportions in our energy economies in order that our children not needlessly suffer. If the HHO expirementers want to test toward this end, more power to them.
The questions I attempted to submit to your site were:
1. In what country will the challenge occur? Preferably North America or proximal.
2. Would the challenger be open to performing the tests in a closed lab environment instead of in the "real world" open air? Specifically, vehicles placed on stands, left running, side by side with dynamometers attached. Guards on site, 24x7, entire duration of tests videotaped for posterity?
3. Can the vehicle be an older model using a distributor (points, rotor) instead of electronic ignition?
4. Would the challenger be willing to do side-by-side tests with two exact copies of the same vehicle, one fitted with HHO apparatus, one stock?
5. Would the challenger be willing to place the $1m USD in escrow account for the benefit of the participant(s) upon receipt of the entry fee? If you're going to challenge, might as well be willing to show the cash.
6. What is your definition of 'engine wear' as applicable to the challenge? Will both test vehicle engines be allowed an application of silicone or comparable sealant prior to the test. Will the term 'engine wear' be agreed upon by all parties to the challenge prior to introduction of money by either party?
Regards and good evening.
-
Media and government are, by your own admission, often capable of sinking to the lowest of levels to suppress information for their own benefit/agenda. Who says China, Iran, N. Korea or other "axis of evil" nations (pun, not my words) are not developing/using this type of technology? If it's merely a quest for truth, I'd lay money that every modern government on earth is actively involved in alternate energy research these days.
But what's to research? There are plenty of people who claim they've done it -- it works. Surely, if that's true, it's simply a case of *using* it. Of course if they're only 99% of the way there then that's a whole different story. 99% is *not* over-unity and never will be.
The questions I attempted to submit to your site were:
1. In what country will the challenge occur? Preferably North America or proximal.
It was going to be in New Zealand (where I am based) but I've since had quite a bit of media interest and as a result, it may be relocated to the USA and reported on in depth by a major TV network. I'll post more on this to the challenge website when a final decision has been made.
2. Would the challenger be open to performing the tests in a closed lab environment instead of in the "real world" open air? Specifically, vehicles placed on stands, left running, side by side with dynamometers attached. Guards on site, 24x7, entire duration of tests videotaped for posterity?
There will be two levels of testing: Lab-tests where the conditions can be carefully controlled and duplicated for all challengers and "real world" (which is where we actually drive our vehicles) in which case the cars will be driven over virtually identical distances through identical types of traffic/environments).
3. Can the vehicle be an older model using a distributor (points, rotor) instead of electronic ignition?
The vehicles will be late-model cars that (invariably) will have electronic engine management systems. This challenge is to prove that the technology works with cars you can buy off the dealer's showroom *today* - since that's what most of us drive.
4. Would the challenger be willing to do side-by-side tests with two exact copies of the same vehicle, one fitted with HHO apparatus, one stock?
Several "control" vehicles (of the same make/model/mileage) will be run alongside the challenge vehicles to provide a baseline for comparison. The other base.line will be the initial mpg figures for each (unmodified) vehicle in the challenge. These figures will be established before and after the tests.
5. Would the challenger be willing to place the $1m USD in escrow account for the benefit of the participant(s) upon receipt of the entry fee? If you're going to challenge, might as well be willing to show the cash.
When the identity of those backing the challenge is disclosed (which it will be), any concerns about the availability of the money will be quickly dispelled. (Note that Google isn't putting the $30m on offer in its Lunar X-Prize in escrow either because it's assumed that the bonafides of the backer is adequate).
6. What is your definition of 'engine wear' as applicable to the challenge? Will both test vehicle engines be allowed an application of silicone or comparable sealant prior to the test. Will the term 'engine wear' be agreed upon by all parties to the challenge prior to introduction of money by either party?
All engines will be rendered tamper-proof for the duration of the challenge and stripped down (under independent supervision by accredited service-personel at the end of the challenge). Although the exact definitions are yet to be established, I expect it would be something along the lines of "no perceptible difference in wear" should occur between the control and challenge vehicles and that "no damage likely to significantly reduce the normal service life of the vehicle" should be present in the challenge vehicle's engine.
As I said, this will all be clearly defined when the final set of rules are published.
Remember, the challenge organizers stand to make a lot more money if there's a successful challenger than if there isn't so this will be as objective as humanly possible and scrutineered by independent referees at every stage.
But who cares? Since as far as "overunity.com" is concerned, it's just a "fraudulent offer".
Obviously there's no point in me posting further information here. In future all updates and announcements will be on a dedicated site that's currently under development.
-
No, let me retract that.
I *AM* pissed off that this the thread on a valid technology challenge has been dumped in the "investment scams, warning about fraudulent offers" forum while a discussion on the *real* scam (HHO systems for cars) isn't.
Clearly the admin doesn't want any challenge to the "beliefs" of the faithful and wishes to discredit anyone that actually requests a little proof of the extraordinary claims being made.
And they say that the mainstream are the ones with the closed minds. The word hypocrisy springs to mind here.
What's funny is that there is a water4gas scam ad front and center when you first hit the site, in all its mason jar and plastic tubing glory. The packet of baking soda and measuring spoon is a nice touch too.
-
What's funny is that there is a water4gas scam ad front and center when you first hit the site, in all its mason jar and plastic tubing glory. The packet of baking soda and measuring spoon is a nice touch too.
Yeah, perhaps a little "disclosure" is in order from the operators of "OverUnity.com".
Who's really scamming who here?
-
@xjet
Don't know who you are, so I will try not to be rude.....but will be direct.
I agree with some of what you say and acknowledge that there is a lot of things said in this forum that sound pretty far fetched. Then you come on board with this big money. That to me sounds like a scam because of lack of information that I have about you. Then I begin to think of why would this guy put up $1M instead of spending a few thousand on a few old cars and try it himself? Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, I don't have all the information.
I don't put my money on anything I can't win. But, I do listen to people who have credibility, honesty and integrity. Not saying that you don't because, like I said, I don't know you. But I will tell you that I have a friend who is a mechanic at a GM dealership who has tried this on an older car. He bought it to travel back and forth to work. He was skeptical but tried it out of curiosity. So, he took down his mileage for a few months, installed the cells and recorded the mileage for two months. One cell did little so he tried 3 cells. He say's he has gone from 20.3 mpg to 26. He has no agenda or reason to lie. I drilled him on some of the issues I heard about, like running lean. His plugs look good, even after 2 months.
You don't know me, nor I you. But, I will say that this guy is believable because I know him and he is a very respected mechanic. So my money is on him. It's not the 25% that you are asking, but I have enough faith in him to know it does work to some extreme. Will the car die from this in 6 month? Can't tell you that.
Bottom line for me is this. If I knew for a fact you are on the up and up, like you expect others to show proof, I would think about investing in this myself and have him do it for me.
Brad
-
No, let me retract that.
I *AM* pissed off that this the thread on a valid technology challenge has been dumped in the "investment scams, warning about fraudulent offers" forum while a discussion on the *real* scam (HHO systems for cars) isn't.
Clearly the admin doesn't want any challenge to the "beliefs" of the faithful and wishes to discredit anyone that actually requests a little proof of the extraordinary claims being made.
And they say that the mainstream are the ones with the closed minds. The word hypocrisy springs to mind here.
The site administrators have explicitly stated their beliefs and purposes here and elsewhere. Contrarian opinions, while welcome, certainly should not be allowed to detract from their stated goals - encouragement of testers, professionals and hobbyists to defy, challenge and overcome the currently accepted thinking in the mainstream energy production scene.
Your challenge is quite admirable, and may in fact steep some serious insight into the subject of hydrogen on demand for a fuel. Letting the cards fall where they may, there are many factors outlined by yourself and others that will need much closer scrutiny in order to determine the viability of the claims being made. Most notable are, as you've acknowledged, untimely engine wear, actual improvement in mileage/economy, and simply stepping up to the plate and delivering on claims.
As to the T's and C's you've addressed in my prior question, thank you for your candor. I would strongly recommend that your backers put themselves in the limelight now. If not, they should at least put the cash up. The question of escrow goes to your own credibility.. You are correct in the Google reference, but Paul Allen had to place cash in escrow up front for the first X-Prize. I don't believe Burt Rutan would have participated based on a whim, even though he knew he had the technology to take him beyond the grips of Earth's gravity. I know Google has the money, but before this evening, I did not know who you were. Frankly, after visiting your website and attempting to post questions, I was left in doubt as to the veracity of your public face. Quite possibly, others on this site and elsewhere might question your motives when a simple question submission form fails. At the very least, let me thank you for responding to my questions here.
In closing, let me state that as a "tinkerer" (and under your stated terms as of date) I would not take up your challenge, even if I did have and extra $5,000 to throw into it. It is neither personal nor meant to stir argument with you. I simply believe free energy should be free. If there is a cost to prove it, then any biased observer can misinterpret the results to show failure or questionable outcome. Could I suggest, instead, that your backers might use the $1m instead to fund additional research by you and your staff: With that budget, you could travel to the locations of the more "key" players in the HHO claims market and simply review the results for yourself. Any that might be deemed viable could then go on to lab tests under your control, at your expense. If proven invalid, you've won your argument. Regardless of the outcome, though, you (and your backers) profit from the publicity, and I personally believe you'd profit even moreso by aligning yourself with any potential success story.
My $0.02. The other $0.98 was tax on half a gallon of gasoline. I do not speak for the moderators of this form, only for myself.
-
Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
His idea that electrolytes are full of charged atoms was considered crazy. The atomic theory was new at the time, and everyone "knew" that atoms were indivisible (and hence they could not lose or gain any electric charge.) Because of his heretical idea, he only received his university degree by a very narrow margin. More.
Hans Alfven (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
Astronomers thought that gravity alone is important in solar systems, in galaxies, etc. Alfven's idea that plasma physics is of equal or greater importance to gravity was derided for decades.
John L. Baird (television camera)
When the first television system was demonstrated to the Royal Society (British scientists,) they scoffed and ridiculed it.
Robert Bakker (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
Everyone knows that dinosaurs are like Gila monsters or big tortoises: large, slow, and intolerant of the cold. And they're all colored olive drab too! :)
Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)
Not ridiculed, but their boss W. Shockley nixed their idea, and when they started investigating it, he made them stop. They assembled their point-contact experiment on a wheeled cart and continued, so they could shove it into a closet whenever the Shockley was going to inspect.
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (black holes in 1930, squashed by Eddington)
Chandra originated Black Hole theory and published several papers. He was attacked viciously by his close colleague Sir Arthur Eddington, and his theory was discredited in the eyes of the research community. They were wrong, and Eddington apparently took such strong action based on an incorrect pet theory of his own. In the end Chandra could not even pursue a career in England, and he moved his research to the U. of Chicago in 1937, laboring in relative obscurity for decades. Others rediscovered Black Hole theory thirty years later. He won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics, major recognition only fifty years. Never underestimate the authority-following tendency of the physics community, or the power of ridicule when used by people of stature such as Eddington.
Chladni (meteorites in 1800)
The scientific community regarded Meteorites in the same way that modern scientists regard UFO abductions and psychic phenomenon: quaint superstitions only believed by peasant folk. All the eyewitness reports were disbelieved. At one point the ridicule became so intense that many museums with meteorites in their geology collections decided to trash those valuable samples. (Sometimes hostile skepticism controls reality, and the strongest evidence is edited to conform to concensus disbeliefs.) Finally in the early 1800's Ernst Chladni actually sat down and inspected the evidence professionally, and found that claimed meteorites were entirely unlike known earth rocks. His study changed some minds. At the same time some large meteor falls were witnessed by scientists, and the majority who insisted that only ignorant peasants ever saw such things were shamed into silence. The tide of disbelief shifted... yet this important event is not taught to science students, and those ignorant of such history repeat such failures over and over, as with the hostile disbelief regarding Ball Lightning.
Crick and Watson (DNA)
Not ridiculed. But they were instructed to drop their research. They continued it as "bootleg" research.
C.J. Doppler (Doppler effect)
Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.) Doppler was finally proven right in 1868 when W. Huggins observed red shifts and blue shifts in stellar spectra. Unfortunately this was fifteen years after Doppler had died.
Robert L. Folk (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
Discovered bacteria with diameters far below 200nM widely present in mineral samples, able to both metabolize metals and to create calcium encrustations. Proposed their large role in creation of "metamorphic" rock and everyday metal corrosion. These ideas were rejected with hostility because the bacterial diameter is too small to include enough genetic material or ribosomes, and they seem immune to common sterilization techniques.
Galvani (bioelectricity)
"They call me the frogs' dance instructor."
William Harvey (circulation of blood)
His discovery of blood circulation caused the scientific community of the time to ostracize him.
Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
It was not the church authorities who refused to look through his telescope. It was his fellow scientists! They thought that using a telescope was a waste of time, since even if they did see evidence for Galileo's claims, it could only be because Galileo had bewitched them.
Karl F. Gauss (nonEuclidean geometery)
Kept secret his discovery of non-Euclidean geometry for thirty years because of fear of ridicule. Lobachevsky later published similar work and WAS ridiculed. After Gauss' death his work was finally published, but even then it took decades for Noneuclidean Geometery to overturn the Greek mathematically "pure" view of geometery, and to win acceptance among the professionals.
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
Invented in 1982, other surface scientists refused to believe that atom-scale resolution was possible, and demonstrations of the STM in 1985 were still met by hostility, shouts, and laughter from the specialists in the microscopy field. Its discoverers won the Nobel prize in 1986, which went far in forcing an unusually rapid change in the attitude of colleagues.
R. Goddard (rocket-powered space ships)
Goddard was relatively obscure until late 1944, when those disgusting Jules-Verne fantasies, the rocket-powered space ships, started raining down on London during WWII. (By analogy, imagine the consternation of the scientific community if Iraq responded to Desert Storm with fleets of glowing antigravity disks shooting mind-control rays, or with psychokinesis attacks by ranks of professional psychics, or with troops of trained Yetis!)
"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished."
-Sir Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator's "Rockets in Space", NATURE, March 14, 1936
"This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists." -A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926
Goethe (Land color theory)
T. Gold (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
T. Gold (deep mine microbes)
J. Lister (sterilizing)
T. Maiman (Laser)
Not ridiculed, but his boss said now to his 'optical maser' idea. He received funding only after threatening to quit and pursue the laser in his garage. Even so, it was a battle, and his funding was pulled twice.
Lynn Margulis (endosymbiotic organelles)
In 1970 Margulis was not only denied funding but also subjected to intense scorn by reviewers at the NSF. "I was flatly turned down," Margulis said, and the grants officers added "that I should never apply again." Textbooks today quote her discovery as fact; that plant and animal cells are really communities of cooperating bacteria. But they make no mention of the barriers erected by the biological community against these new ideas. Even today Margulis' ideas about cooperation in Evolution are not widely accepted, and are only making slow headway against the assumption that Evolution exclusively involves absolute selfishness and pure competition.
Julius R. Mayer (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
Mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time.
B. Marshall (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
Stomach ulcers are caused by acid. All physicians knew this. Marshall needed about ?? years to convince the medical establishment to change their beliefs and accept that their confident knowledge was wrong; was nothing but a widespread believe, and that ulcers are actually a bacterial disease.
B. McClintlock (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
Won the Nobel in 1984 after enduring 32 years being ridiculed and ignored
J. Newlands (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
George S. Ohm (Ohm's Law)
Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal. His work was called "a tissue of naked fantasy." Approx. ten years passed before scientists began to recognize its great importance.
Fernando Nottebohm
Mammal brains never grow new neurons after birth? We're given a set number of brain cells, and we can only kill them but not make new ones? After twenty years as a ridiculed minority, Nottebohm's work with songbird brains was finally taken seriously, and the biologists of today now recognize that the age-old dogma was wrong: brains DO regenerate neurons after all. The information has not yet reached most of the biological community, nor the general public.
L. Pasteur (germ theory of disease)
>Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
Prusiner endured derision from colleagues for his prion theory explaining Mad Cow Disease, but was vidicated by winning the Nobel.
Stanford R. Ovshinsky (amorphous semiconductor devices)
Physicists "knew" that chips and transistors could only be made from expensive slices of ultra-pure single-crystal semiconductor. Ovshinsky's breakthrough invention of glasslike semiconductors was attacked by physicists and then ignored for more than a decade. (When evidence contradicts consensus belief, inspecting that evidence somehow becomes a waste of time.) Ovshinsky was bankrupt and destitute when finally the Japanese took interest and funded his work. The result: the new science of amorphous semiconductor physics, as well as inexpensive thin-film semiconductor technology (in particular the amorphous solar cell, photocopier components, and writeable CDROMS sold by Sharp Inc.) made millions for Japan rather than for the US.
Ignaz Semmelweis (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
Semmelweis brought the medical community the idea that they were killing large numbers of new mothers by working with festering wounds in surgery, then immediately assisting with births without even washing hands. Such a truth was far too shameful for a community of experts to accept, so he was ignored. Semmelweis finally ended up in a mental hospital, and his ideas caught fire after he had died.
N. Tesla (Earth electrical resonance, now called "Schumann" resonance)
N. Tesla (brushless AC motor)
An AC motor which lacks brushes was thought to be an instance of a Perpetual Motion Machine.
Jacobus Henricus van't Hoff (theory of 3D molecules)
As a relative newcomer and unknown, he was attacked and ridiculed for proposing that a 3D tetrahedral structure would explain many problems in chemistry. His foes rapidly went silent, and finally his ridiculous cardboard models won the first nobel prize in chemistry (1901.)
Alfred Wegener (continental drift)
Peyton Rous (viruses cause cancer)
Warren S. Warren (flaws in MRI theory)
Warren and his team at Princeton tracked down a Magnetic Resonance anomaly and found a new facet to MRI theory: spin interactions between distant molecules, including deterministic Chaos effects. Colleagues knew he was wrong, and warned him that his crazy results were endangering his career. Princeton held a "roast", a mean-spirited bogus presentation mocking his work. Warren then began encountering funding cancellations. After approx. seven years, the tide of ridicule turned and Warren was vindicated. His discoveries are even leading to new MRI techniques. See: SCIENCE NEWS, Jan 20 2001, V159 N3, "spin Control" (cover story)
Wright bros (flying machines)
After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.
George Zweig (quark theory)
Zweig published quark theory at CERN in 1964 (calling them 'aces'), but everyone knows that no particle can have 1/3 electric charge. Rather than receiving recognition, he encountered stiff barriers and was accused of being a charlatan.
Fritz Zwicky (Dark Matter)
Known in the astro research community as "Crazy Fritz," Zwicky investigated orbit statistics of galactic clusters in 1933 and concluded that the majority of mass had an invisible unknown source. He was ignored, dismissed as an eccentric.
-
I agree with some of what you say and acknowledge that there is a lot of things said in this forum that sound pretty far fetched. Then you come on board with this big money. That to me sounds like a scam because of lack of information that I have about you.
Well there are plenty who will vouch for me. I've been active on the Net and in the NZ media for nearly 15 years and my website is the longest-running sci-tech news/commentary site in Australasia and one of the longest-running in the world. I have established a long track-record of credibility and am frequently used as an "expert commentator" by the local media.
Then I begin to think of why would this guy put up $1M instead of spending a few thousand on a few old cars and try it himself? Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, I don't have all the information.
Well I make no bones about it that I believe these HHO systems are a scam and the science backs me up 100% on that.
So I've managed to find a small group of wealthy people who believe I may be wrong. I suggested that we mount a challenge that would allow those who claim to be achieving these scientifically impossible gains in fuel efficiency to prove it for all to see. A big-money challenge seemed like the best way to do it.
If nobody wins the challenge then we break even - the media rights and entry fees pretty much covering the cost of the overheads.
If the challenge is won, then I lose the bet, eat humble pie and the others get to rub my nose in it, as well as being able to commercialize their own products with the endorsement of the challenge as "proof" that it works.
But I will tell you that I have a friend who is a mechanic at a GM dealership who has tried this on an older car. He bought it to travel back and forth to work. He was skeptical but tried it out of curiosity. So, he took down his mileage for a few months, installed the cells and recorded the mileage for two months. One cell did little so he tried 3 cells. He say's he has gone from 20.3 mpg to 26. He has no agenda or reason to lie. I drilled him on some of the issues I heard about, like running lean. His plugs look good, even after 2 months.
Then why hasn't GM jumped on the HHO bandwagon? After all, with the losses they're currently suffering, being able to improve the fuel-efficiency of their current product range by even 20% would be a massive advantage to them in the market. All the car companies are hurting real bad right now, so you'd think they'd be all over this fuel-saving technology - if it worked that is.
You don't know me, nor I you. But, I will say that this guy is believable because I know him and he is a very respected mechanic. So my money is on him. It's not the 25% that you are asking, but I have enough faith in him to know it does work to some extreme. Will the car die from this in 6 month? Can't tell you that.
Well the science says that if he's seeing gains like that then it's almost invariably because the engine is now running leaner (and nothing to do with the *tiny* amount of H2 that's being injected). It could be that his engine was too rich before and all he's done is tune it up like it should have been in the first place. It could also be that he's unknowingly driving just a little more carefully than he did (most of us are with the price of gas like it is). It's also possible that he's now running his engine *slightly* over-lean,. in which case engine damage may not occur for quite some time.
The reality is that it could be *all* of these things combined -- which cumulatively could quite reasonably account for the fuel-savings he's getting. The one thing it *won't* be is the HHO system.
-
xjet, I am not sure what your position is here but at this time I find your intent is to discredit those who have either contributed and or are trying to contribute to this forum.
Your idiocy is overwhelming and I for one feel you should be removed from this forum. If you have $1,000,000 and want to give it to someone that can prove at least a 25% energy savings, get the money ready. If not, please stop posting your idiotic attempts to stop people from experimenting with the things they all are.
This forum is an excellent place for free energy seekers to take part in. If you are not here to contribute positive content to this forum, then please leave.
If you really want to see free energy and or even just a 25% + energy savings, then I must refer you to the magnet. Take a look at it, study it, play with it and then stick it up your ass and then tell me how much energy it took for you to dig it out of your ass with your fingers and then stick it back up your ass and tell me how energy it took for you to get it out of your ass using an iron object. I bet you will find that it took more then 25% less energy using the iron object then it did using your fingers. Once you have performed that experiment and find that I am right, please forward my winnings to overunity.com.
I am generally against those who are disrespectful and I will admit my post to you was disrespectful but considering your disrespectful comments you have posted on this forum, I feel my reply is appropriate.
-
xjet, I am not sure what your position is here but at this time I find your intent is to discredit those who have either contributed and or are trying to contribute to this forum.
Excuse me? I am not the one who has been calling others an "idiot" and a "fool" as some have called me. I believe my response has to been to argue the science (or lack thereof) and the psychology of the issues and stick to the facts.
If you find this distasteful then I must agree that this is not the place for me. I prefer a forum where open and honest debate is encouraged rather than one where those who bring in a dissenting point of view and present it in a reasoned rational way are chastised for doing so.
Your idiocy is overwhelming
I still can't understand why people here feel it necessary to resort to such terms. Do you feel threatened by someone who uses fact rather than fantasy to present his arguments?
and I for one feel you should be removed from this forum.
Why do you feel so afraid of the facts and my adherence to them?
If you have $1,000,000 and want to give it to someone that can prove at least a 25% energy savings, get the money ready.
So you'll be posting exactly the same demands to Google? "Show us your $30m or shut up about the Lunar X-Prize" perhaps?
If not, please stop posting your idiotic attempts to stop people from experimenting with the things they all are.
Again with the name-calling?
And please, do cite the post where I have "attempted to stop people from experimenting". In fact, if you'd read what I'd written I actually *encouraged* people to experiment -- but not to profess that they had made supernatural discoveries without first checking that there weren't explanations for their observations that could be provided by mainstream science.
This forum is an excellent place for free energy seekers to take part in. If you are not here to contribute positive content to this forum, then please leave.
I think I have already contributed an enormous amount of balance to the discussion here. If you do not think so, you are free not to visit this thread again.
If you really want to see free energy and or even just a 25% + energy savings, then I must refer you to the magnet. Take a look at it, study it, play with it and then stick it up your ass and then tell me how much energy it took for you to dig it out of your ass with your fingers and then stick it back up your ass and tell me how energy it took for you to get it out of your ass using an iron object.
Ah. I see.
You have spoken volumes. I had thought for a moment that you were seriously interested in debating issues relating to science in an adult and mature fashion. Clearly I was wrong. My mistake, I apologize for my mistake.
I am generally against those who are disrespectful and I will admit my post to you was disrespectful but considering your disrespectful comments you have posted on this forum, I feel my reply is appropriate.
Please read what you have written and tell me who is being disrespectful here.
I have never called anyone an "idiot" or a "fool" or suggested that they fiddle with their backsides. Clearly the word hypocrisy isn't in your dictionary either.
Can someone please assure me that this person isn't really representative of the kind of intellect one would normally find here?
I honestly thought this was a serious discussion forum where mature people with at least a modicum of intelligence and maturity could conduct reasoned, rational discussions on issues of science. Am I wrong?
-
xjet, I never called you a name, I simply implied your comments show ignorance. If you are ignorant, then the shoe must fit. If not, then please stop commenting with ignorant comments and show us some footage of the experiments you have performed that would discredit those who have claimed to achieve what they claim.
We are here to see if those who have claimed progress, have done so with merit. We are also here to trade ideas that can lead to experiments that could possibly show a energy savings.
Your comments could possible discourage some from becoming involved and that is why I have posted what I have. I in no way want anyone discouraged from trying to experiment with ideas they may have and or stumble across.
Sticking the magnet up your ass comment actually was said to make a point. Stick it up your ass and try to push it out. then stick it back up your ass and sit on a iron substance. You should find that it took less pushing power to get it out then it did to put it in.
That was a way for me to explain how concept is wrong. Maybe if you think about it, you will see what I am saying.
If you do not do the experiments yourself, you will never know and for you to try to discredit those who have, makes you a disrespectful person. So if you have no proof they are wrong, then don?t come here and say they are. If you have physical proof showing they are wrong, then by all means, please show us, otherwise, sit back and let us do what we are doing because if they are wrong, will find out and if not, then we can help spread the word.
-
@xjet,
You could be completely correct in you assumptions. Hell, for that matter, maybe there was a lot of rain storms at that time so he slowed his driving down. Many unknown possibilities for the increase due to one or several miscalculations. But, I do believe more in lines with HeairBear.
With the amount of money you say you are willing to put up, why don't you get a couple of ace mechanics, get a couple of old cars and try it. What is your agenda? If they make that much money to do this, then surely they would just spend very little and do it for themselves. Makes good business sense to me.
You seem so dead set against this, it's hard to believe you would ever accept it if it were true.
No disrespect intended
Brad
ps, In my lifetime, I have seen science proven wrong.
-
Million Dollar HHO Challenge Open Submission:
www.geocities.com/gearturbine
-
ps, In my lifetime, I have seen science proven wrong.
Amen.
-
Well Mr. Squegee69.
Looks like you make this nice forum a experience religion.
Thanks.
Carlo Barrera.
-
With the amount of money you say you are willing to put up, why don't you get a couple of ace mechanics, get a couple of old cars and try it. What is your agenda? If they make that much money to do this, then surely they would just spend very little and do it for themselves. Makes good business sense to me.
Trust me, I wouldn't take on a bet I didn't think I could win.
I've already done tests that conclusively prove that the science is correct and the claims being made by HHO scammers are groundless.
I intend to publish the detail of those tests on the http://interestingprojects.com website shortly but in effect, it showed (as the science predicts) that while the introduction of H2 and O2 (generated from electrolysis) into the intake of an ICE will result in more work being done for a given amount of gasoline consumed, as soon as you ask the ICE to provide the energy needed to perform that electrolysis, the overall system efficiency is *reduced* and indeed becomes negative when compared to an unmodified ICE.
Three tests were conducted three times each, the results averaged and the conclusion was very clear, well outside the margin of error.
Now when I publish these tests, I'm sure that the HHO scammers will simply say "the tests were flawed", "he did it wrong", "it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the technology", etc, etc.
That is why I am challenging the scammers themselves to provide the proof. This is the only way we can get irrefutable evidence one way or the other.
If all the entrants are on a level playing field, there's no oil-company or government involvement and the results are published publicly for all to see -- there can be no question of impropriety or conspiracy involved if it turns out that the scammers claims are completely disproved and the HHO hoax is exposed.
ps, In my lifetime, I have seen science proven wrong.
Nowhere near as many times as I've seen pseudo-science proved wrong, believe me!
-
Sorry the complete name, is; Carlos.
I forget the "s" at the end.
Please dont be mad, looks like everybody here are kranky for words.
Be happy with numbers.
Carlos Barrera.
-
Sr. Barrera,
Muchas gracias. Cu?ndo nosotros tenemos las ideas nuevo, son f?cil de descontar las ideas al supersticion. En este evente ellos son las ideas muy cre?bles, especialmente cuando ellos son visibles en ciudades como Las Vegas, Nevada donde los taxis son operados con el propano, no gasolina. Es la hora del "cambio" seguramente. Disp?nseme por favor con mi hacer de la lengua espa?ol.
-Sq
-
@xjet,
Makes sense to me except for the part about the guys willing to dish out money, when you say you have irrefutable evidence that it does not work. Didn't you say they thought that it did work, or am I incorrect? Have they not seen the tests?
I am looking forward to your results. I don't mind being wrong...kind of use to it now that I am older. I hope it reveals the truth. But you know this is not going to stop them all. There will be some who have faith more than sense. And there are others who believe that they are doing it now, like my friend (You probably won't be able to convince him) Then there are those who just have to do it for themselves. I just hope that the tests are done without any bias. If your findings are true, then thank you for exposing the scams.
One last thing. Anybody can disprove suedo science.
-
Didn't spell check. sorry
-
Its alive.
-
Sorry my gramatic is not good in off, like my projects are.
C.B.
-
Sorry my gramatic is not good in off, like my projects are.
C.B.
Como mis muchas traducciones, el monstruo de Frankenstein es a menudo el resultado. Otra vez, por favor, perdona mis esfuerzos, yo escribo a m?quina m?s que toqueteo por lo tanto mis resultados son a menudo sarc?sticos antes que pr?cticos.
-
Y mi estimado Se?or squegee69, es su deseo que le reponda en espa?ol.
Solo permitame comentarle la extrordinaria importancia de poder tener la gran oportunidad de presentar mis proyectos; www.geocities.com/gearturbine En este tan importante Forum, Con gente tan valiosa como lo es usted. Mi estimado Se?or.
Agradesco de ante mano sus finas atenciones.
-
?Aguardo la llegada de sus videos verdaderos del gearturbine, parece ser muy impresionante! ?Quiz?s usted podr?a anunciar m?s informaci?n en este descubrimiento en un foro relacionado a motores? Soy implicado personalmente en un proyecto muy semejante a suyo y soy emocionado muy acerca de ello (OSPMM). Este venue es regarde lo HHO...
----english---
I await the arrival of your actual videos of the gearturbine, It appears to be very impressive! Perhaps you could post more information on this discovery on a forum related to motors? I am personally involved in a project very similar to yours and am very excited about it (OSPMM). This venue is regarding HHO...
-
Todo lo que puedes ver es lo que tengo para mostrar por el momento. Realy. All you can see is what I have to show for now. Realmente.
El video de youtube lo explica todo y en la animacion puedes verlo girar y girar. The youtube video explains all, and the animation you can see turn and turn.
Dibujos y cosas. Draws and stuff.
This is or this is not.
Tic Tac Toe.
www.geocities.com/gearturbine
-
Trust me, I wouldn't take on a bet I didn't think I could win.
I've already done tests that conclusively prove that the science is correct and the claims being made by HHO scammers are groundless.
I intend to publish the detail of those tests on the http://interestingprojects.com website shortly but in effect, it showed (as the science predicts) that while the introduction of H2 and O2 (generated from electrolysis) into the intake of an ICE will result in more work being done for a given amount of gasoline consumed, as soon as you ask the ICE to provide the energy needed to perform that electrolysis, the overall system efficiency is *reduced* and indeed becomes negative when compared to an unmodified ICE.
Three tests were conducted three times each, the results averaged and the conclusion was very clear, well outside the margin of error.
Now when I publish these tests, I'm sure that the HHO scammers will simply say "the tests were flawed", "he did it wrong", "it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the technology", etc, etc.
That is why I am challenging the scammers themselves to provide the proof. This is the only way we can get irrefutable evidence one way or the other.
If all the entrants are on a level playing field, there's no oil-company or government involvement and the results are published publicly for all to see -- there can be no question of impropriety or conspiracy involved if it turns out that the scammers claims are completely disproved and the HHO hoax is exposed.
Nowhere near as many times as I've seen pseudo-science proved wrong, believe me!
To often many good ideas are ruined by bad intension such as the "glass jelly jar" there claims of up to a 75% improvement in gas mileage everyone should know that this is flat impossible with this device using 9 feet of stainless steel electrode piano wire and baking soda, but yet the knowledgable people say nothing. Ebay is flooded with devices that have copper wire and crimp terminals inside the generators or electolysers knowing that the corrosive electrolytes corrode the copper causing higher amperage to a failure, as most of you know electricity runs on the outside surface of the wire not like water in a hose. We as in the people concerned with (HHO) Oxyhydrogen production need to weed our own or this is a doomed idea. I my self make these devices with approx 200 sq.in. of stainless steel electrode surface area, I have used everything as an electrolyte ( NaHCO3, NaOH, KOH, NaCl, Vinegar and Sea Water) even H2O2 as a booster in the same device with outputs ranging from a real 1 to 1.7 Liters per minute. I see the claims all the time on blogs and on Utube some just make me so mad because of the flat out lies. I'll say it one more time we need to take a good look at what is going on and question the obviously wrong or people like Mr. Simpson with public opinion will eat this up alive.
-
xjet, here is a link to a PDF file that you should read. It will help explain things for you that you seem to want to discredit.
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ForumPDFs/International%20Independent%20Test%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf
-
You put the electric wire at the water, and in one side H (I dont remember if is the positive, or negative) is the double of bubbles, because is two H H, and in the other side is the oxigen O.
And if you have a very efficient over-unit power plant, is good because, you can make it cheap.
-
You put the electric wire at the water, and in one side H (I dont remember if is the positive, or negative) is the double of bubbles, because is two H H, and in the other side is the oxigen O.
And if you have a very efficient over-unit power plant, is good because, you can make it cheap.
I am an Electrical Engineer and a Licensed Electrical Contractor in the State of Oregon in the USA, I have Been Making (HHO) Oxyhydrgen devices for two years now on sale on my web site. This "MASON" jar is a piece of junk a scam and a fraud on there claims of a 75% increase in gas mileage it cannot be done with this device no way no how and if you buy one you get what you pay for, a glass gar full of crap. "PERIOD"
These are the devices that make the good manufactures of (HHO) devices look like a clowns because of there bogus lies about stupid products that are available like the "MASON" jelly jar.
We are under the microscope by people such as Mr. Bruce Simpson like it or not, and now public opinion means everything.
-
This seems familiar......
Another day, another helping of "Special K".
Seems like I've seen this all before, and it added up to (in) the same end.
:D
If the guy wants to set up a bogus challenge, let him (and it certainly seems that way from the angle of an unsecured or bonded $1M prize).
I'll take mine in the gas savings I enjoy, and it doesn't seem that it will take too long with the way petroleum products are heading. ;)
-
Realy the Challenge go for more than a $1000.000
Is going to breake a paradigm.
-
Water for fuel would be perfect for the $5000.00 DIY cruise missile! Now, if you do find a poor soul to take the challenge and win, you will have something much more powerful and it only cost a million dollars. Bruce says he made it to show that it can be done easily and cheaply by any one wanting to kill people from afar. The problem is the fuel to get it where you want it to go. Now I see why some peoples wish to stop him.
If Stanley Meyer was a fraud/scam, why did the Pentagon keep him from leaking out the information to a water fueled rocket? Why was NASA also interested? Why was anybody interested if he didn't have an actual working device to demonstrate several times in several places? How does a US court ruling scientifically prove he was a fraud?
Have you watched s1r9a9m9's videos 1 & 2? http://www.youtube.com/user/s1r9a9m9 Would this not win the challenge if the requirements were met?
-
And a a easy coment, you can take some water from the humedity in the atsmosfera to. ;)
-
Water for fuel would be perfect for the $5000.00 DIY cruise missile! Now, if you do find a poor soul to take the challenge and win, you will have something much more powerful and it only cost a million dollars. Bruce says he made it to show that it can be done easily and cheaply by any one wanting to kill people from afar. The problem is the fuel to get it where you want it to go. Now I see why some peoples wish to stop him.
I have never seen so many people saying so much about a subject they really have no understanding or knowledge of. It amazes me.
"The problem is the fuel to get it where you want it to go"
Do you even know what kind of fuel a pulse-jet uses?
It uses just about anything that is a gas or liquid and can burn.
So that's gasoline, diesel, jet-fuel, kerosene, cooking oil, propane, and a raft of other substances.
So where's the problem you talk about?
I haven't heard of any of those substances being a "problem" to get ahold of.
Once again I urge you people to actually go do some real learning about *real* science rather than all this pseudo-science cult-like BS and talk of "conspiracies" and "murders" that proliferates around here.
Come on people - it's not that hard but it does require effort and discipline.
-
discipline to never look outside of the dogma we call science today!
-
The problem? The price or cost of the substance.
-
As much as i have tried to not reply I have a few quesdtions:
What makes Tesla, Einstein etc the know alls?? Why is it assumed they are correct forever??
Why have a contest if you know you are right??
After 30 years of automotive repair I would like jet to explain to me why running lean will destroy an engine?? An engine can be made to run lean just fine. Yes lean can hurt engines in very lean conditions. But as long as exhaust gas temperatures are checked there is no room for concern. Running rich can astually be more harmful. Excess gasoline is allowed to go into the crankaces diluting the oil. I have seen many more engines die from rich conditions than lean.
It is not illegal in minnestoa to tamper with o2 sensors, just the catylitic converters
I have a 4x4 with 4 kasey daylighters each pulling 10 amps, you tell me why when i drive at night with them on for extended periods (due to dear) the gas mileage does not go down??
k im done now
thanks
Park
-
As much as i have tried to not reply I have a few quesdtions:
What makes Tesla, Einstein etc the know alls?? Why is it assumed they are correct forever??
Well maybe it's stories like this (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080703140721.htm) that keep appearing regularly in established scientific journals. Every time we test Einsteins theories, they seem to be proven stunningly accurate.
Why have a contest if you know you are right??
Because no matter what science I use to back up my claims and no matter what tests I run myself, there will always be those (typically scammers) who'll claim I'm wrong -- producing their own pseudo-scientific ramblings and claims that my tests were somehow flawed.
So, the only way to prove beyond doubt for all concerned is to let those who make the claims prove them in an independent and carefully monitored challenge.
If they are able to do what they claim under close scrutiny then I'm wrong, they're right and they're also a lot richer.
If they are unable to do what they claim then everyone has to admit that I (and the rest of conventional science) was right and that those making the claims were at best "wrong" and at worst, simply trying to scam honest folks out of their hard-earned cash.
After 30 years of automotive repair I would like jet to explain to me why running lean will destroy an engine?? An engine can be made to run lean just fine. Yes lean can hurt engines in very lean conditions. But as long as exhaust gas temperatures are checked there is no room for concern.
Lean-running produces excessive NOx levels (which can produce premature catalytic converter failure) and excessively lean running (of the kind required to get a 25% fuel-saving) will produce burnt valves/seats and promote detonation that can cause piston failure. But you know that already.
Running rich can astually be more harmful. Excess gasoline is allowed to go into the crankaces diluting the oil. I have seen many more engines die from rich conditions than lean.
So long as an engine is allowed to reach its full operating temperature, rich-running will not cause any measurable contamination of sump-oil because an fuel that does manage to make it into the oil will be vaporized almost immediately at those temps.
What is more likely to cause problems is a lot of very short runs in a cold enviroment. Even in a well-tuned car, the engine's ECU will cause a rich-run at start-up when cold and if the engine temperature never rises high enough, that contamination can accumulate. But you know that already.
It is not illegal in minnestoa to tamper with o2 sensors, just the catylitic converters
And it's not illegal here either.
I have a 4x4 with 4 kasey daylighters each pulling 10 amps, you tell me why when i drive at night with them on for extended periods (due to dear) the gas mileage does not go down??
Because the vast majority of the energy your engine generates goes into overcoming aerodynamic drag, internalf friction and rolling resistance. 40A at 12V is just 480W - or 0.643HP. That's not going to have a big effect on your MPG.
-
agreed on most parts:
I live in minnesota and im sorry but the exxsesive fuel does not always get vaporized, i have seen cars running rough have over 2 quarts of gas in the oil, most after and oil change begin to knock and are toast. I used to have a 7 gas analyzer at my shop, we dont have smog tests here for years now so i got rid of it. But i am not convined on your excess nox emissions running lean. I would anticipate a rich bad burn to increase that. And from my gm training i would have to disagree with a lean car injuring the converters. I have had to replace converters that have lit on fire due to excessive rich conditions due to bad o2 sensors. The converter can only burn up so much excess fuel. But i know u know most of these things. I am not here to fight about it. I am trying one out yeah. Why due to curiosity mainly. And i have the equipment at hand to do most testing adn even ECM reprogramming if nessecary. Your veiws are not incorrect to where you are coming from and i dont have the knowledge to debunt you. I am not einstein etc. But i do feel that if they could have all lived longer we wold have greater things. I have found in my life there is always something new to be discovered.
The only complaint i have is taht most assume HHO is overunity. I have to disagree with them. Yes u are using the enigne to produce the power. And i realize you cant get more out than u put in. But i do ask this:
if the spark from the engine ignites the gasoline, am i correct to assume that the energy of the spark IE 45000 volts times 2-3 amps if i rememebr correctly is more than the horspower created??
-
Every fuel system programmer knows you can "program the ECM" too get 20% better mileage and still pass emissions test.
My system can rapidly condense the exhaust. Separate the good stuff. Then polarize "it" energize "it" shoot it back into the engine.
Is it in the rules you have to use the alt for powering the HHO production or what ever? ;)
-
Every fuel system programmer knows you can "program the ECM" too get 20% better mileage and still pass emissions test.
My system can rapidly condense the exhaust. Separate the good stuff. Then polarize "it" energize "it" shoot it back into the engine.
Is it in the rules you have to use the alt for powering the HHO production or what ever? ;)
If you can prove this, you do not need the million dollar prize. The working solution is worth many times more than that. Now, can you prove it beyond mere hearsay?
-
The proper type and amount of water will speed up the CO oxidation. http://www.not2fast.com/NACA/naca-report-426.pdf
Because of the way THEY did the test no increase in power.You only need to almost turn the water to HHO to increase power and mileage. If I remember right they used superheated steam in there test?
My pdf reader is not working right now.
Mark
-
-When you think about the Hydrogen as a combustion, you dont think in another option.
-If you compare the hydrogen, with the gasoline. What is the octane than the hydrogen cut have, just to put a number, just to put a level, to compare.
-And to squezze the hydrogen from water, all the factors are valid, ike; electricity, temperature, compression, or emptiness, esteam, etc... To breake the HH union O. :)
-
I'm the guy who posted the HHO Scam video to YouTube (I'm sure most of you have already seen it).
This posting is just to let you know that I've organized a one million dollar prize for the first person who can use one of these HHO setups to consistently produce an improvement in fuel efficiency of 25% or more without causing engine damage.
The details are on the website referred to in the video.
It is now time for those who are making such bold claims to step up to the base and play ball!
Ello xjet and everyone else on these boards. I have been a frequent guest here for a few months and this thread prompted me to register. Some interesting stuff here worthy of big money scientific development / testing. Equally some wacky stuff and colourfull charactors to add flavour to the boards.
Firstly I haven't seen the video or rules mentioned in quotes above but I have read the whole thread. Sorry xjet but you don't come across with any conviction. You say there's a prize but the rules in thread don't meet your own criteria for scientific evaluation. At best you come across as being contrary in a forum of your disliking and at worst, scamming free motoring...all expenses paid.
For me or anyone else to believe in your offer there would be Monies in a trust account up front for all to see. So everyone knows you mean business and not being contrary just because your bored. The test should be static so's theirs no ambiguity or corruption of data. Don't see why you need to drive these things. To many variables that could influence the final analysis let alone possible abuse. Why not simply bench test on new modern engines straight from the factory. Use a company like MIRA (google it) for unbiased testing and analysis of components afterwards.
Me...I'm skint but a 15 quid local advert would get me a 2,500 quid investor for a share of 470.000 quid (sorry no Stirling Pound sign on this bloody key board). I believe 25% if not more MPG increase is possible but I don't have enough data on engine wear so that would be my calculated gamble. I don't think it would be detrimental given the information I've read on the net.
To finish....wouldn't you agree a better bang would increase your idea of thermodynamics
Kind regards
Steve
-
@nutsNbolts,
I agree. Something is not right here. I threw out the question to xjet of why these investors don't believe him and are putting up money when he says he has %100 scientific proof that it doesn't work. If these guys don't believe him, why should we? It looks as though he has a different agenda.
If xjet wanted to prove to the world that all of these HHO systems are scams, which sounds as though some may be by their extraordinary claims, he would do it differently. He seems to have an absolute negative attitude which probably makes him bias.
Brad
-
@nutsNbolts,
I agree. Something is not right here. I threw out the question to xjet of why these investors don't believe him and are putting up money when he says he has %100 scientific proof that it doesn't work. If these guys don't believe him, why should we? It looks as though he has a different agenda.
If xjet wanted to prove to the world that all of these HHO systems are scams, which sounds as though some may be by their extraordinary claims, he would do it differently. He seems to have an absolute negative attitude which probably makes him bias.
You are right -- I *do* believe there is no merit to this H2/O2 rubbish that's being spouted by so many would-be amateur "scientists".
And that's why we have a challenge.
Those who say I'm wrong and they're right are being challenged to prove their claims.
There are always people who will never believe a scientific proof, no matter how many times an experiment or test is reproduced with exactly the same results or how many times the observations are explained by conventional science -- you only have to read many of the posts on this website to see that.
There are always those who believe they are right while the rest of the world is wrong, despite the evidence and the facts presented to them.
This is simply a characteristic of human psychology and explains things like cults and religions. This "faith over fact" syndrome is strong enough that people are willing to die in the name of their faith - look at JonesTown and Heaven's Gate for two very clear examples of this.
So the only way to prove to all those who will simply never believe the science is to let those who claim to have the answer to demonstrate their claims in an entirely open and independent test that is open to scrutiny by anyone with an internet connection.
That's the way the challenge will work. And since it was announced there has been a good deal of interest from TV production companies who I'm talking with now about making this into a TV show. It may be that the scope of the challenge wold be widened somewhat if that were to happen. Even if a major TV network gets behind this I'm sure there'll still be some who claim it's a scam however :-(
What will the "it works" crowd going to say if none of those who take up the challenge are able to prove, before a global audience in a totally open and objective environment, that they can't obtain the results they're claiming?
Would it convince *you* that this HHO stuff is bunkum?
-
@xjet,
If you have absolute truth that it does not work and done properly, yes I would be inclined to believe it. Did the investors see your test data and still don't believe you? It just seems odd. If you can't convince someone intelligent enough that makes enough to put up $1M, your proof may be less convincing for someone as average as myself.
I hope you do expose the scammers. They are out there and should be exposed to the public. I also agree with most of what you say. but don't believe science knows everything. I have to go by what is rational to me, like my friend who has been doing this a while. If, in fact, he comes back to me later and says he was wrong, I would believe him. As long as you are unbias and no one has to give money to get into the offer, then I would be very interested in the results.
Brad
-
I've already done tests that conclusively prove that the science is correct and the claims being made by HHO scammers are groundless.
I intend to publish the detail of those tests on the http://interestingprojects.com website shortly but in effect, it showed (as the science predicts) that while the introduction of H2 and O2 (generated from electrolysis) into the intake of an ICE will result in more work being done for a given amount of gasoline consumed, as soon as you ask the ICE to provide the energy needed to perform that electrolysis, the overall system efficiency is *reduced* and indeed becomes negative when compared to an unmodified ICE.
Three tests were conducted three times each, the results averaged and the conclusion was very clear, well outside the margin of error.
Now when I publish these tests, I'm sure that the HHO scammers will simply say "the tests were flawed", "he did it wrong", "it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the technology", etc, etc.
Sir,
I am very interested in the tests that you have created on the (HHO) Oxyhydrogen Devices, is there a loose ETA when the information would be available ? I assume the glass "Mason" jam jar is one of the manufactures tested because of the far reaching unbelievable results claimed, can you at least say what manufactures were used or known (HHO) Oxyhydrogen generator types were tested ?
Thank you,
Fuzzy
-
I am very interested in the tests that you have created on the (HHO) Oxyhydrogen Devices, is there a loose ETA when the information would be available ? I assume the glass "Mason" jam jar is one of the manufactures tested because of the far reaching unbelievable results claimed, can you at least say what manufactures were used or known (HHO) Oxyhydrogen generator types were tested ?
The data should be online sometime early next week.
-
I'm pleased Stefan had the sense to move this thread to the scam section.
xjet,
Why do you feel the need to disprove hho injection? if you think electrolysis and hho injection has no merit then just don't do it? You're making a fool of yourself!
Furthermore, if you think all free energy is a scam then why don't you just goto another forum on the web thats a little more mainstream so that it doesn't upset your obviously delicate constitution. :-*
-
I'm pleased Stefan had the sense to move this thread to the scam section.
It says more about the myopia and bias of the forum admin than the challenge, trust me.
xjet,
Why do you feel the need to disprove hho injection? if you think electrolysis and hho injection has no merit then just don't do it? You're making a fool of yourself!
Because thousands of people are being defrauded of millions of dollars by scammers who are making outrageous claims about this technology. Don't the public have the right to know the *truth*?
Instead, all they get are ridiculous claims of "double your mileage" and, when asked why (if this stuff works) it's not already standard equipment on cars being made today they get some fantasy about the auto-makers and oil companies being in some conspiracy" -- yet there is absolutely *NO* evidence presented to support such an outrageous allegation.
Or do you not believe that the public have a right to the truth?
Furthermore, if you think all free energy is a scam then why don't you just goto another forum on the web thats a little more mainstream so that it doesn't upset your obviously delicate constitution. :-*
Because I figured "what better place to let those who claim this HHO technology works know about the challenge".
Clearly, when it comes to a situation where those who make all those wild claims are asked to "prove it", they start labeling the challenge as a "scam" and get extremely defensive or go on the attack.
What's wrong guys? Here's your chance to *prove* you're right and earn big money in the process.
If you choose to avoid being put to the test then I think it only reinforces my claim that this is all bunkum.
Which is kind of what I expected really.
-
Your proposed competition is somewhat myopic, you don't even specify what you (the almighty judge of the competitiom) would consider engine wear, you can simply move the goalposts as the match progresses, I suspect you wouldn't even proceed with the competition, you'd just take the money and run, only a fool would give you $5k.
xjet said:
"Don't the public have the right to know the *truth*?"
Why just HHO xjet, do have any other ongoing crusades for "truth and justice"? Why don't you camp outside casinos with a sandwich board stating "The odds are against you my friends" I'll tell you why, because you couldn't care less about other people losing money, that's why! QED: you're sugary altruistic coating is nothing but dried out liquid shit.
-
xjet
This thread is in exactly the right place the reason being, from my previous reply At best you come across as being contrary in a forum of your disliking and at worst, scamming free motoring...all expenses paid.
Right now all we're getting is http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915 Excuse the humour but by your own volition came here and started this thread.
I was rather hoping you was serious with the million dollar prize 1) because I'm skint and could use extra beer money 2) most importantly to have it proved or disproved once and for all. To quote you the public have a right to the truth
which is a Noble endeavour and worthy of endorsement from both sides of this argument.
Instead, all they get are ridiculous claims of "double your mileage" and, when asked why (if this stuff works) it's not already standard equipment on cars being made today they get some fantasy about the auto-makers and oil companies being in some conspiracy" -- yet there is absolutely *NO* evidence presented to support such an outrageous allegation.
To be fair some of your points are valid. Personally I don't buy the whole MIB business but then again I'm not naive enough to believe a government wouldn't stop you from collapsing their economy.
Some of the advertised claims made are wildishly ridiculous which wouldn't stand a chance with UK trading standards law but from the country of origin they have a right to make them (claims). I also see that as their business and to reminding the world "let the buyer beware". If a punter thinks a twisty bit of wire in a jam jar is going to return them 60 mpg I think we'll both agree it's not more MPG they should be seeking. However it's one of those silly adverts that got me into this because I thought to meself "what a load of bollock". Well hey presto!....there's a whole new world out there.
As for why it's not standard equipment on cars today is a whole new argument. Just to much stuff out there to even contemplate listing and standardising / regulating to an industry standard for this thread.
Clearly, when it comes to a situation where those who make all those wild claims are asked to "prove it", they start labeling the challenge as a "scam" and get extremely defensive or go on the attack.
As I said I wish you were genuine but your approach is a tad, excuse my bluntness, Monty Python. To me and I suspect others here, think you've over promised and under delivered. Objectively look at it from my stand point. You have a million dollars then you dont but you have backers with a million dollars. Monies not up front because a a multi billion dollar company isn't doing it to. If you are Mr Simpson I've never heard of you like I've heard of Sugar, Branson, Trump, Gates. Lastly it could be a TV show. Is that "as well" or instead of ?
As for the alchemy of HHO or what ever you want to call it. It works. It's a short term fix that anyone can do, buy or make N bolt on. It's by no means the end game but doable today unlike the water spark plug but that'll get there.
You'll be one of those arguing the alternator side of the story but negating the burn side of the story I would suspect. You could even argue better cam timing, spark plugs, inflated tyres or what ever would increase MPG 25%, to which I would agree. Then the reply would be lets do that too and then bolt on the gizmo's and see how we can increase the thermodynamics of the burn.
Kind regards
Steve
-
Everyone stop take in a breath, hold it, release it and calm down. Feel better now?
I'm pleased Stefan had the sense to move this thread to the scam section.
Have you paid any attention to the ads that are on this forum? Half of them seem to be from the same people that xjet are calling scammers. Stefan has a conflict of intrest here. Hmm. make money or move this section to the scam section. I've been reading this forum for a year now and it amazes me everytime that someone tries and takes a scientific/logical approach to the results that people here are seeing, they are belittled and insultated and told to go away "Shun the unbeliever!!!". Look if you want someone to back up xjet I will. I actually laughed when I went to his website. I use to read his stuff several years back. He always seemed to be legit to me (More so the some people on this forum). Everyone on this forum is so ready to believe and not question people that say that they have done what is seemily impossible, yet anyone that wants to say "prove it" gets squashed into the ground. Even this own forums contest has yet to be claimed. Why is that when everyday there is someone new posting that they have discovered the secret to the universe? And yet everyone jumps on board going ohh and ahh. I would love for even a hundered thousandths of what is claimed on this forum to be true, yet there has never been any real evidence proving it is. The most you ever have is two people getting these wonderful results and everyone else mysteriously failing.
The test that xjet purposes is almost industry defacto for what he is purposing. Why is this so hard to believe? Especially when the people on the forum seem to believe everyday that new things are being discovered in people's basements that defy conventional wisdom, and are done in a completly non logical matter.
Your proposed competition is somewhat myopic, you don't even specify what you (the almighty judge of the competitiom) would consider engine wear,
Yes he did it is your standard compare the modified engine to the unmodified engine. If the modified engine has more wear that is bad and doesn't pass. Is that unreasonable?
$5k is cheap for this kind of contest as well.
If you have absolute truth that it does not work and done properly, yes I would be inclined to believe it. Did the investors see your test data and still don't believe you? It just seems odd. If you can't convince someone intelligent enough that makes enough to put up $1M, your proof may be less convincing for someone as average as myself.
Ask yourself why so many people believe we never landed on the moon? You can always show people "proof", but it's still up to the individual to take your proof and believe it.
Now I open the floodgates to being called names and belittled, as I try and bring some calmness and reason to this great thing called life.
-
ColdLife
Most of what you say is true and I hope xjet is genuine with the prize but like so many on this forum he's gone off half cocked. Which doesn't instill confidence I think you'll agree.
Have you paid any attention to the ads that are on this forum
Personally I had to go front page and check those adverts just to be genuine when I say "no I don't" ...ironic of me I know. There's much better stuff in these threads or youtube or other forums.
As for those punters that fall hook line and sinker for some of the lesser "wares" it is a pity but they only have themselves to blame. Let the buyer beware is the old old saying.
UK government is looking into power station genorated hydrogen ...oh ffs. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/confused005.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org) Infrastructure to transport hydrogen. Storage infrastructure. Just so Billy Bunter the stupid punter can pull up a hydrogen fuel pump and fill up. How crazy is that? My taxes paid on research to tax the cubic meter. I mean ffs. Tax the freaking milage done if we have to be taxed. Lets get away from fossil fuel or near as darn it.
I was hoping a genuine prize could get this in the public domain. Once proven industry might get on the band wagon. Governments might bank roll some research. Public might be open to new prospects.
Regards
Steve
-
@xjet. I suppose you have tested different high mileage fuel systems and found they don't work?
I have a HAFC HHO system on my truck. Way before I put it on my truck, my engine has oil burning problem.
It's limiting my mileage increase. I have a well designed fuel heater. City mileage was 12.5 now close to 16.
It's hard to say what my mileage is with just HHO.
-
Howdy All,
As you can see this is a very hot topic, Mr. Simpson may be the first but certainly won't be the last.
Many inventors have good ideas but not the cash to seek out their dreams, this is my proposal to this Forum and all others involved. A fund needs to be started by the members held in trust for these occasions. A committee of the brightest we have amongst us would look and evaluate possibly submitted complete systems that have merit voted on openly to be sent on their way for the chance at any grand "PRIZE" with our good luck and praise behind them.
This has got to be a consorted effort on our part to send off the best of the best where ever and when ever a challenge is made such as this.
We need to stay on top of this one !
Best regards all !
-
@xjet. I suppose you have tested different high mileage fuel systems and found they don't work?
I have a HAFC HHO system on my truck. Way before I put it on my truck, my engine has oil burning problem.
It's limiting my mileage increase. I have a well designed fuel heater. City mileage was 12.5 now close to 16.
It's hard to say what my mileage is with just HHO.
I'm not trying to discredit you maxc (I don't know everything about your situation), but generally of the people that I have read that have seen improvement from HHO it has been on old low mpg vehicles. Most of the time a good cleaning and a tune up as well as just driving more conservative would give you the gains you are seeing. Most modifications to cars they do a lot of different thing in addition to the HHO system but accredit all of their gains to the HHO. This doesn?t make sense to me. It?s like me doing a complete tune up on my car and slapping a sticker on the car and saying all the improvements to the performance was due to the sticker. Maybe I?m wrong I don?t have all the evidence in front of me. Also old motors have a huge potential for increased gains in efficiency because they were not made to be efficient. New motors on the other hand don't have as much room for improvement.
-
I'm not trying to discredit you maxc (I don't know everything about your situation), but generally of the people that I have read that have seen improvement from HHO it has been on old low mpg vehicles. Most of the time a good cleaning and a tune up as well as just driving more conservative would give you the gains you are seeing. Most modifications to cars they do a lot of different thing in addition to the HHO system but accredit all of their gains to the HHO. This doesn?t make sense to me. It?s like me doing a complete tune up on my car and slapping a sticker on the car and saying all the improvements to the performance was due to the sticker. Maybe I?m wrong I don?t have all the evidence in front of me. Also old motors have a huge potential for increased gains in efficiency because they were not made to be efficient. New motors on the other hand don't have as much room for improvement.
It's a 1997 F150. It's rated at 16 city. I got bad gasoline 6 years ago. Replaced injectors ect...Always got 15. to 15.8 city. It only has 91,000 on it back then it had 28,000. Not knowing it had problem it the ECM too which locked injectors on. Burning them out and washing cly out. All plugs have oil on them!
-
It's a 1997 F150. It's rated at 16 city. I got bad gasoline 6 years ago. Replaced injectors ect...Always got 15. to 15.8 city. It only has 91,000 on it back then it had 28,000. Not knowing it had problem it the ECM too which locked injectors on. Burning them out and washing cly out. All plugs have oil on them!
Do have bad seals on the motor or something? I've got a guy that I work with that use to work at one of the Ford plants they built the F-150s at, see if he has any suggestions.
-
Everyone stop take in a breath, hold it, release it and calm down. Feel better now?
Have you paid any attention to the ads that are on this forum? Half of them seem to be from the same people that xjet are calling scammers. Stefan has a conflict of intrest here. Hmm. make money or move this section to the scam section. I've been reading this forum for a year now and it amazes me everytime that someone tries and takes a scientific/logical approach to the results that people here are seeing, they are belittled and insultated and told to go away "Shun the unbeliever!!!". Look if you want someone to back up xjet I will. I actually laughed when I went to his website. I use to read his stuff several years back. He always seemed to be legit to me (More so the some people on this forum). Everyone on this forum is so ready to believe and not question people that say that they have done what is seemily impossible, yet anyone that wants to say "prove it" gets squashed into the ground. Even this own forums contest has yet to be claimed. Why is that when everyday there is someone new posting that they have discovered the secret to the universe? And yet everyone jumps on board going ohh and ahh. I would love for even a hundered thousandths of what is claimed on this forum to be true, yet there has never been any real evidence proving it is. The most you ever have is two people getting these wonderful results and everyone else mysteriously failing.
The test that xjet purposes is almost industry defacto for what he is purposing. Why is this so hard to believe? Especially when the people on the forum seem to believe everyday that new things are being discovered in people's basements that defy conventional wisdom, and are done in a completly non logical matter.
Yes he did it is your standard compare the modified engine to the unmodified engine. If the modified engine has more wear that is bad and doesn't pass. Is that unreasonable?
$5k is cheap for this kind of contest as well.
Ask yourself why so many people believe we never landed on the moon? You can always show people "proof", but it's still up to the individual to take your proof and believe it.
Now I open the floodgates to being called names and belittled, as I try and bring some calmness and reason to this great thing called life.
I totally agree with you "ColdLife", I realize that human nature takes over sometimes but what has happened in this thread I haven't seen ever on any other forum, where is the moderator walking on water somewhere ?? I'm the kind of person that am prepaired for the snowstorm, earthquake, flood, hurricane especially when I see it coming. I'm not stupid to wait until afterwards saying what happened, I didn't know, they didn't tell me or poor me I was "DUMB". There is a firestorm coming "LIKE IT OR NOT" and from the look of things here on this forum, you all are gonna get "BURNT". Like I said Bruce Simpson may be the first but won't be the last. Just wait someone of fame or stature gets hurt maimed or die from the crap (HHO) devices out there, then what ??? Laws do change .......... "REALLY" !!!!
-
Here is a story (http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2008-07/bmw-planning-electric-minis-california) which seems to blow the HHO scammers' claims that the auto-makers are in a conspiracy with the oil companies to suppress this technology.
Electric cars? How will the oil companies and auto-makers respond to a defector in their ranks?
Or could it be that the conspiracy that gets spoken of so frequently here is nothing but hot air?
-
"will be offered through a lease program to selected customers in California and 10 will be used as show cars." I'll even do a better one. I live in a small city that has a GEM factory. I see an occasional nice GEM on the streets but never during the winter. It's a jazzed up golf cart with needed improvements but it's actually an American company building them here in America! You never see that anymore. We had this factory for over 5 years now, why aren't we all driving these then? Why can we build 5000 dollar rockets and not an efficient and inexpensive car? Oh wait, we can! Why aren't we driving them?
-
test
-
xjet:
" The energy required to dissociate the atoms of a water molecule in this way is still more than the energy recovered by recombining them back into water"
The energy required to drill for oil and transport oil and refine oil is still more than the energy recovered
by burning it in your automobile.
Just a thought :-\
radicalzero
-
xjet:
" The energy required to dissociate the atoms of a water molecule in this way is still more than the energy recovered by recombining them back into water"
The energy required to drill for oil and transport oil and refine oil is still more than the energy recovered
by burning it in your automobile.
Just a thought :-\
radicalzero
That is generally incorrect (barring occasional miscalculation) with relation to the oil that is currently being extracted. It is correct with respect to some very expensive-to-drill locations that are not yet being tapped, hence why they are not being tapped yet. Oil companies are in it to make money. It if costs more money in terms of energy (oil companies do not get free energy) than they can sell the oil for, they would be losing money. Yet they are not losing money. Draw your conclusions.