]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
to answer the question of:
"So now, Who really has created Overunity?"
I have to remind you that ENERGY IS NEITHER CREATED NOR DESTROYED, IT IS ONLY CHANGED FORM.
So exactly WHERE does this fit into the equations?
I believe it is possible to have a device that uses energy, and the output for CHANGING THE FORM of said ENERGY is more EFFICIENT than the INPUT. so this would account for "Over Unity" being possible.
But then, when that does occur, does one leave it at that, or can the technology progress? if the technology does progress further where we take small portions of RAW energy and convert it into a HIGHLY REFINED and HIGHLY EFFICIENT source of energy, when does one stop? how much is too much energy?
how much does one need?
so the questions now point to economics, and personal stand-point. if you have enough energy for you and your family, would you need more? if you do need more, then WHY? well....you could SELL IT. but that is what BIG OIL is ALREADY DOING!!!
hence the cycle of greed continues.
I may be thinking totally abstract or out of the box here, but we need a scientific definition of "Over Unity" in relation to energy FLOW, and the USAGE of such energy.
AlaskaStar
Statistics: Posted by AlaskaStar — Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:02 pm
]]>
Not sure if I am understanding them correctly, but I don't seem to see where the Potassium Hydroxide or What ever other Chemical goes into the formula.
One formula was Calculated using Sodium Sulfate, Another using Sulfuric Acid. Both appear with the same results.
And Neither one actually Specifies the Amounts of these chemicals that are Added to the water.
The Electrolyte Added to Increase Conductivity, DEFINATELY Increase the Efficiency. Some, Much better than Others.
So are these formulas correct?
Or are they Outdated by newer technology?
Another claim also being made is:
"Overunity is getting more energy out than you put in".
This makes Considerably More Sense to me.
This is Definately no where near the results of these formulas.
So now, Who really has created Overunity?
Statistics: Posted by chemelec — Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:43 pm
]]>
That old thing? my wife and I built that on the KITCHEN FLOOR, well mainly because all the other horizontal surfaces were all occupied with other "projects" and I needed to prove the concept. to whom needed to prove it to. well me, mainly. I needed to prove that the concept for one, WORKED. I then went on to modify the truck engine and fuel injection system to run so clean, that it would pass a smog WITHOUT a catalytic converter. the fuel temperature AT the fuel rail after modification was at 200 degrees F. the other modifications would take this thread clear off topic.
Vapor Carb: a means to VAPORIZE FUEL (mainly gasoline), by way of using strictly AIR-FLOW and not allowing liquid droplets to enter the engine.
my design is similar to the chemical process used in CHROMATOGRAPHY. or otherwise known as the WICKING principle.
The effects on fuel mileage were astounding. the other modifications were easy to set up, and harder to "undo" to allow the truck to sell.
I averaged, when all modifications were in place & functioning, about 65 to 69 miles per gallon. the truck was a "short frame" CHASSIS+CAB (Commercial/ fleet) Flatbed. the truck weighed in at 10,000 POUNDS, and had a GVW of >9600 LBS. it was equipped with a 351 Windsor (5.8 Litre) EFI, port injected V8 and was coupled to a C6 three speed automatic (also modified). it was only 2 wheel drive, and had no problems getting around in winter (except for the occasional complete brake failures) due to the incredible weight of this rolling behemoth. I rebuilt EVERYTHING, or replaced EVERYTHING on this truck with the exception of: BODY PARTS, CAB, & FRAME. yes I spent a TON of MONEY fixing up an old truck. but I know that the last 4 owners were able to get $5K each time the truck sold. so I know it kept it's value.
my current vehicles only get 50% of the mileage of that truck. that would be with NO MODIFICATIONS, and running proper, tuned and what-not.
Enough rambling. I no longer own this truck. Last I heard, it is located in the lower 48 (Main-land USA).
Well I have a hay field to run the tedder through and then bale it.
AlaskaStar
Statistics: Posted by AlaskaStar — Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:41 pm
]]>
weggl
Statistics: Posted by weggl — Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:26 am
]]>
So when of the mob on the forum gets a car to gun exclusively on hydroxy gas I suggest they bring it here to run then the world will get to know about it.
Regards Warren Eggleton
Weggl
Statistics: Posted by weggl — Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:04 am
]]>
Yes I know there are men who lead and for every Bob or Alaskastar there are 100's more who will never reveal themselves to you and I.
The technology is here and we are going to bring it in right under the world's nose. Gasoline is going to go out at around $10 per gallon (wild guess).
Another words after the big Dogs break our economy some of us will still have the resources to get around.
Bob's new circuit based on the TL594 is going to be a better unit than the PWM3E but both will work up to 1000% over faraday. Or you can get enough gas back to make 10x the power required to split the water.
What is your email?
Statistics: Posted by ElectroGasMan — Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:43 pm
]]>
Bob and I had an interesting conversation on this yesterday where (I do hope I quote this right) we reached concensus that water as as a control or buffer in a process...but thats not straight electrolysis.
As far as overunity in other devices I have reviewd around 70 technologies this year and many hundred over several years from Joe Cells to magnetic motors. I have in some instances seen evidence that suggests overunity but till this day none have been independently verified or opperate on a sustainable basis.
The USA government does have a lot of dis insentives but here in Australia and many other parts of the world we are encouraged.
The NEC who I belong to would love to report on any overunity devices out there ...or verify it even if the owners of such technology wish to remain anonamous.
I understand your concerns and respect your opinion, and like I said I am not trying to pick any arguments. Email me privateluy and i would be happy to share the data I have collected over the years on over unity claims.
I do however believe it is possible to use water exclusively as a fuel...and Bob is as far advanced as anyone I have seen.
I can assure you I have visited many developers and have the inside info on many large companies in this field...Bob (and Alaska Star) are way ahead.
Mark
Mark
Statistics: Posted by MarkinAustralia — Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:27 pm
]]>
Without splitting to many hair it's overunity when you get more out than you put in. For instance the fuel cell technology standards of 2007 teach that it takes so many watts to make so much H2 and based of this world unit of watts per liter. 200% is far in surplus of say 75% returns of the 100% power input.
Let me rephrase again. In todays modern scientific calculation the best case for production of hydrogen is 3/4 back for every one unit input. 75% that is only in theory. After putting the H2 into a 40% efficient fuel cell it is even less.
So what I am saying is that according to this figure of a total efficiency of less than 50% with fuel cell tech, our 200% comes out to be 300% better.
Call it PPM, OU, COLD FUSION, make my day, but it is blowing the doors off of all of our power sources and all without toxic fumes.
In general (Not Theory) OVERUNITY is simply having a system that permits an input power of 1X and then through the process at least 1.1X (110%)as an output is made in order to refuel with some left over for other needs.
In the case of a 50% rating as a very maximum efficiency for a some day pie in the sky promise of clean fuel cell power, the 200% and more possible here at OUPOWER is outstanding.
What this shows is that no one in power/government/position wants these higher efficiencies, if we the little people can do it in a bath tub while modern science can not.
100's of people are going around the red tape and just doing it.
Sue me if you think I am doing things unlawfully is what it is all about today, not "OH what a wonderful invention that is better than mine".
I will and am doing it, but I am not going to tell all of my business to a group of childish men who are angry blind and jealous of my success.
If the rest of you are wondering why no one has busted their gusts on their free energy units it is for this reason.
Bottom line. Overunity is everywhere and being done.
Keep listening and if you can add 2+2 you with see what I mean.
Statistics: Posted by ElectroGasMan — Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:56 pm
]]>
However running and engine on water is to me not overunity at all..we are using a fuel.
I am not trying to pick an argument, and I know many technologies have been suppressed in the past , but the climate is changing (no pun intended) and its harder to bury any useful technology that will help energy efficency or emissions reduction.
The biggest barrier I have faced in the USA is greedy individuals and corrupt business men.
I always stand to be corrected, and will always respects others opinions.
Kind Regards
Mark
Statistics: Posted by MarkinAustralia — Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:14 pm
]]>
Compared to the general population there are only a handful of men who do not want these new energy systems to be used. It is becoming known around the world that this is true with so many patents and inventions being tied up and rejected. Money rules.
There are literally 100's of designs that are self supporting.
This work has been forced underground for years and will not be stopped as it is a hope/creative spark in the mind of men. It is our gift.
We will simply use it for ourselves for awhile and in 20-30 years it will reach to the rest of the world. After many years the filthy rich will have passed on to the grave, hopefully leaving some room for change.
Any new idea takes well in excess of 10 years to be made usable by the general population.
Like Bob has simply stated. Take 8 plates and arrange them 1/8 inch apart making your first 7 cell series unit and run it for a few days at 2.1 volts per cell. After conditioning as he calls it drop the voltage to 1.85volts per cell.
Using the right materials(304 or 317 SS) you can then see your own overunity results. 200%plus!!!!
It proves how stupid we have all been to have trusted modern science and the leaders/governments of the school system for having our best interest in mine. I will never send my children to a public school again. We have 2 little ones. Home schooling them allows us to get all of the facts to the child. The whole truth not just the bits and pieces some government funded power wants to force feed.
What a mistake on our part.
Happy trails and experimenting.
Statistics: Posted by ElectroGasMan — Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:57 pm
]]>
The one painful deception I downloaded has a very anti Jewish segment stuck on the end, apart from that it makes one think.
Why did Bush lie about his seeing Sep 11 on telly?
Why did he not get off his bum at the school when he claimed he heard about
the plane hitting the building?
Why were all the military aircraft conveniently out of the area.
Why was there about 20 mock hijackings on on that particular day?
Why wasn't the 3dr building collapse shown on the telly?
And many more one could ask.
But who in power is going to do anything about it.
Warren Eggleton
Statistics: Posted by weggl — Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:57 am
]]>