Has Over Unity been achieved by anyone on this board?

[AlaskaStar]

As for BACK ON TOPIC, the main question here is:

HAS ANYONE ACHIEVED OVER-UNITY, ON THIS BOARD OR ELSEWHERE?

here's a fleeting thought:

If the internal combustion engine, say generating 100 HP at the crankshaft, measured on a dyno, has only ONE drive accessory, and that is the ALTERNATOR. Lets say for the sake of argument that it's an OLD ONE. one of those super hefty VERY INEFFICIENT Alternator. (Efficiency is all relative here) And say that someone develops a way to use what LITTLE energy is actually available to use, and generates only 5 times more hydrogen than the engine requires to run at 100 HP, using nothing more than the little old alternator.

Well I can see here a few things that would certainly say that it is and is not OU.

first: the engine is INEFFICIENT. if it got 10% ACTUAL Efficiency I would be AMAZED.

Second. the alternator is inefficient by design. this takes no brains here.

Third: the DEVICE. this device is 500 times MORE efficient than the motor at converting water into fuel. does it mean that there is OU? NO. it simply means that there has been invented a device (hypothetically) that converts avalable energy into the water for dissociation into hydrogen and oxygen to be used by the engine for fuel.

Can it then be CLOSED LOOP?

Well do some math and it seems VERY OBVIOUS. YES.

so now, with the NON-Efficient engine, and a non-efficient alternator, and a way to produce hydrogen that is 500 times more efficient than that which is used by the engine, I beg of you to answer one fleeting question:

PLEASE DEFINE OVER-UNITY.

Would it mean that the output of the machine is converting the ACTUAL AVAILABLE ENERGY MORE EFFICIENTLY than the input?

Would it mean the same laws of perpetual motion?

And on the perpetual motion, what if the motion was to be purposely STOPPED for say a week, and there was energy stored as pressure in a bottle, would then that mean you have perpetual motion? well it isn't moving! Ok, Perpetual ENERGY? well, that's up to the first bunch of questions here.

So efficiency and energy are all relative to what you are doing.

Is it more efficient to move 50 hay bales one at a time, or it more efficient to move 4 at a time because the dumb human can ACTUALLY LIFT 200 POUNDS?

it's incredibly simple, and yet super complex thought, as the thought is simple, the putting it to action is not so simple.

to answer the other accusation of "Nobody being able to yet ever reproduce the AlaskaStar method," I beg to differ. There have been SCORES of people whom have done it. whether they see a use for it? it's up to them.

Having me demonstrate it for the University of Alaska, Anchorage on June 11th, 2007, at the Auto Diesel Technology Building, with nothing hidden, and all to see, and even have copies of the RAW VIDEO, filmed by 3rd party, neutral in position, might mean more than a fart in a skillet. I can mail a copy of the DVD to anyplace on earth.

So Where is YOUR VIDEO, explaining everything and showing how it's done?

Uh-HUH. I thought so.

AlaskaStar

[weggl]

As the mention of oil companies has already been brought up on this thread I would like to mention a video of hydrogen being used (u tube) in I think Norway where a hydrogen fuelling station has been built with the expectation of fuelling cars being made to run on tanked hydrogen. But take note as to who owns the fuelling station! Answer Shell.
This tells me that they are covering all the bases.
So why do you think that gas on demand cars would be outlawed in the USA?
And why must emissions come up to manufactures specs and not be below them?

Weggl

[weggl]

Bob, sounds like the Neo-Nazi’s are in power.

weggl

[weggl]

Bob,
Have you seen the videos 1-in plane site 2- painful deceptions
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

[ElectroGasMan]

Hi All

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.

[MarkinAustralia]

I am not sure that efficient electrolysis is over unity. We are after all using a fuel that being water. To me breaking faradays law is not breaking any other laws like the second law of thermo dynamics or any other energy conservation.
I know its really a matter of semantics, but having being a reviewer of many other technologies (magnetic motors etc) i have never seen anything that can be independently verified as overunity.
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

[ElectroGasMan]

Hey Mark

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.

[MarkinAustralia]

Hi Michael,
like I said its semantics but we are using a fuel source....water. Like solar uses the sun etc etc we are using water power. Overunity normally is associated with extra power being produced with an unknown source ...or as you correctly state there is an un explainable multiplier.
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

[ElectroGasMan]

Hi Mark

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?

[weggl]

G’day Markin,
I’m new to the plot since you’ve been away. You are right we are much more lenient regarding emissions in this country than the USA, I don’t mean lenient about high emissions but rather low emissions.
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

[weggl]

AlaskaStar, I have just been viewing your project page and am wondering what on earth is a Vapor Cab?

weggl

[AlaskaStar]

weggl:

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

[chemelec]

I have been looking at the Laws and formulas for Overunity.
Also Faraday's 1st law of Electrolysis.

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?

[AlaskaStar]

Chemelec:

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

[chemelec]