Announcement.

[HairBear]

Start a new thread Farrah. Let's see what you got on your mind. You've made some good points in the past and I'm curious as to where you stand now. You aren't gonna dis me now, are you?

[bussi04]

What is this - just another big tease?

Why come on here at all and get people all excited if they never intended to make the secret public knowledge? That's the last we'll hear of this so-called breakthrough then!

So we have these guys, H20power and now Sebosfato all claiming to have cracked it, all claiming they know how to run a car on water... yeah right... Yawn...

Strangely though, not one of them has even come close to providing a proof of concept. Wonder why this is?

I don't know what Tut and the guys really have, but it's very clear that H20power and Sebo have nothing to offer but flawed science, wild speculation and wishful thinking. And to my mind at least, this minor oversight does tend to tarnish any claims of having, as Sebo puts it on his thread, 'discovered how to run a car on water using Stanley Allen Meyer water injector principle'!!

Somebody wake me when there's a working model being put through it's paces!

Hi Farrah Day,

there seems to be some frustration at yourīs.

Work for proof of concept continues as far as I can see. please look at
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post86208.

there seem to be some problems for results:
1. need for expensive tools i.e. lathe, router etc. or manufacturing
2. endless discussions instead of project work
3. no local workgroups - that means everybody has to do the same investment to get results - lack of cooperation
4. unreadiness for sharing (interim) results

change 2 to 4 and you automatically reduce 1.

thatīs the real idea behind the technological challenge h2opower started in this forum. no need for consumers but need for cooperation.
open minded people without greed do need no hide-and-seek.

My work continues and how does yourīs?

bussi04

[ovidonster]

Don't hold your breath while you're waiting ovidonster![/QUOTE]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Don't worry Farrah Day, i'll do some high voltage discharges meanwhile...

I know that the italian patent office is moving with two speeds: slow and still, so our chance to receive the water breakthrough are minimal for the next few months

meanwhile

[dankie]

Im also waiting , you guys really know how to spoil an announcement .

Where is the super cool videos ?

Where are the gadgets ? ... come on .. show us some cool things ?

--------

Lol if it isnt that Quarktoo who like to claim big things him self and play pretend games ?, erm I mean Farrah Day the loony .

I see you tried to insult me , for I dont know what reason ? Because I can make things and you can just play pretend like robbin williams in that crazy movie ... Its all pretend muahahaha....

Never have you once encourage me in my undertaking if I remember , little hating fool . Everytime something is up ur the firts arguing and acting all scientific lol ...

Leave it alone , something is being done , whatever it is , just wait and stay polite and appreciative .

[Farrah Day]

Hairbear, why have you dropped the 'e' now? Just curious, didn't you used to be Heairbear?

Dankie obviously thinks I'm someone I'm not but I'm not going to bother going there, other than to say he is right about one thing, Quarktoo also claimed he had all the answers then failed to produce the goods.

The problem is that this always, without fail, happens. These announcements follow the same old pattern and always end in frustration, and anger and mass dissappointment.

We will never hear anything more of Tut's breakthrough... of course if I'm wrong then great... but I don't fancy the odds.

It seems that many of these breakthrough announcements are either made prematurely before proof of concept has been produced, or are blatantly misleading ramblings of attention seekers and charlatans.

Most of what I see written is pure conjecture based on wild ideas that bear no relationship to real science and reality. Without a proof of concept model, that's all the credit that these ideas warrant.

We have a list of people who have recently claimed breakthroughs but who have had - or have - no proof of concept and have ultimately, to-date, failed to deliver the goods for one reason or another:

Tut and the gang (pending)
H20Power ?
Sebosfatso ?
Quarktoo ??

Bob Boyce I think ranks amongst these guys too as he once claimed to run a car with super high efficiency electrolysis, etc, but whatever happened to that?

Recently, Agentgates, over on Hartmanns site claimed to have cracked the secret of the TPU... then it all went tit's-up, and died a death.

Always the same pattern... always the same conclusion.

I'm not out to cause trouble here, I just wanted to bring some facts to light and inject a little reality into the proceedings in order to prepare you for the inevitable.

Incidentally, if they really do have something and they patent it, well that's it... we will never gear of it again. The only way to get something like this into the mass market is to give it to the masses.

[boguslaw]

are you sure you would do that ?
from one side you can get a few millions for a patent to sit on it and be silent and continue any kind of activity (even researching with nice and plenty of equipments)
from other side you will have nothing except a few days of glory

[ovidonster]

are you sure you would do that ?
from one side you can get a few millions for a patent to sit on it and be silent and continue any kind of activity (even researching with nice and plenty of equipments)
from other side you will have nothing except a few days of glory

I believe those who seek the side with millions are not here on this forum

The others, who are not seeking money or glory will post it on the forum, because they want to make a better life for those who need it (it's called ALTRUISM)

until then:

[HairBear]

LOL! Yeah, the "e" in HeairBear was a drunken mistake or I thought it was clever at the time. It was so long ago and I can't remember, so, I must of been drunk.

On the other hand, I feel the same about the claims of success from the good ole boys for the most part. It's like a bad story that leaves you hanging. A really bad cliffhanger! I'm waiting for the MIB story any day now...

Is there not a patent application we can view? A block diagram? Anything to show more promise than an announcement?

[Schpankme]

We have a list of people who have recently claimed breakthroughs but who have had - or have - no proof of concept and have ultimately, to-date, failed to deliver the goods for one reason or another:

• Tut and the gang (pending)

• H20Power ?

• Sebosfatso ?

• Quarktoo ??

I'm insulted, why would you leave me off the LIST, my concepts and formula work as good as the others.

http://www.energeticforum.com/90687-post56.html

Schpankme

"The oxen are slow, but the Earth is patient."

[Harvey]

When I did an analysis for On-Board Water fuel extraction it was learned that it cannot be used effectively for any long distance application on land or air based vehicles. The reason for this is that the Oxygen Atom is quite a nuisance to carry around in the fuel supply. It was determined that to drive a car the same distance as a single tank of gasoline (44MJ/kg) could provide would take over 50 stops and tank refills using water for the same energy output. The major reason for this is that gasoline uses oxygen from the air while water has the oxygen bonded to it. Not only is oxygen big and bulky by comparison to hydrogen, it is also heavy. Do the math, you will see this is true.

So while hydrogen, if it were compressed to the same energy volume would prove lighter than gasoline, embedding the oxygen into the fuel is a bad idea for land and air based vehicles. Ships on the other hand, for both water and extra-atmospheric space, may prove to be viable vehicles for such technology.

It should be noted also that 75% of water is orthohydrogen which is exothermic during combustion. This means that a land based processing center could utilize this process in a self sustaining way using a thermolysis reactor. Such a reactor would need to be thermally isolated from its environment and the endothermic parahydrogen molecules would need to be magnetically extracted from the water vapor prior to entering the chamber.

[sucahyo]

Bob Boyce I think ranks amonst these guys too as he once claimed to run a car with super high efficiency electrolysis, etc, but whatever happened to that?

Recently, Agentgates, over on Hartmanns site claimed to have cracked the secret of the TPU... then it all went tit's-up, and died a death.

It is interesting to see the connection between those two paragraph.

Bob boyce method is not just high efficiency from electrolysis. His driving circuit have the necessary process to produce 4X input gain.

His device utilize TPU principle, only allowed to be published on limited group, which can obtain up to 16X (IIRC) gain from input if applied outside electrolysis. He mention that using water is safer.

And now he suffer serious illnes from cancer sabotage incident. I pray he will survive and have the time to share all of his knowledge.

There are a couple of people that have his controller report postive result.

[sucahyo]

When I did an analysis for On-Board Water fuel extraction it was learned that it cannot be used effectively for any long distance application on land or air based vehicles. The reason for this is that the Oxygen Atom is quite a nuisance to carry around in the fuel supply.

What kind of process require oxygen storage?

So while hydrogen, if it were compressed to the same energy volume would prove lighter than gasoline,

No. If its stored in liquid this graph bellow show that it is bellow gasoline. Not counting the storage weight and energy need to crack them.

[Harvey]

@Sucahyo,

What kind of process require oxygen storage?

On-Board Water systems (see very first post in this thread) has Oxygen included.

No. If its stored in liquid this graph bellow show that it is bellow gasoline.

You will find that this is the same thing I said, why did you say 'No' ?

[sucahyo]

On-Board Water systems (see very first post in this thread) has Oxygen included.

I see, I don't think they need oxygen storage.

You will find that this is the same thing I said, why did you say 'No' ?

In the graph 1 liter of liquid hydrogen contain less energy than 1 liter of gasoline. That is, at the same energy density level gasoline is lighter that hydrogen.

It is not:
"So while hydrogen, if it were compressed to the same energy volume would prove lighter than gasoline,?

[Harvey]

I see, I don't think they need oxygen storage.


In the graph 1 liter of liquid hydrogen contain less energy than 1 liter of gasoline. That is, at the same energy density level gasoline is lighter that hydrogen.

It is not:
"So while hydrogen, if it were compressed to the same energy volume would prove lighter than gasoline,?

H20 has Oxygen embedded in it, it is the O in the molecule. If you put water in your tank for on-board separation, you are storing oxygen whether you like it or not. Thus my point, water does not make a good fuel for land or air vehicles.

Your chart only shows the energy density per volume it does not reference the grams per liter at that compression. So which weighs more, 31 MJ / L of Gasoline or 31 MJ / L of Hydrogen?

So my point still stands, that while hydrogen is lighter than gasoline, it takes up nearly 4 times the space for the same energy supply even when liquefied.