For The Blind Among Us: [Ok, That'll Include Some Of Those Folks We Love To Call "rednecks"]

[inchman]

We share the same unrealistic hope, DEFCON. But we must move forward towards a "short" term solution and the more noise, the longer it will take.

Blacklight's "solution" is unrealistic and put forward by a medical doctor (not PhD in physics) scam artist, in my, and many other people's opinion, some who estimate has used up $50 million dollars in investors' money since 1999. From what I can see, he has an arc welder and an "auger" to show for it.

One of the documents on the site shows that the fuel is 90mg of Cu and CuO in combination with 35mg of H₂O. That is his "H₂O based" fuel. I'm guessing that the H₂O is there to produce a "fog" to help make the sparks from the copper seem larger. There's no detail (intentional?) in how to read the graphs in that document, but he makes it look like the system can produce a peak of 600000 watts. WOW. But it only does that for 0.0003 seconds.... and the rms value would actually be 420000W. So that is 126 watt-seconds. To burn a 126 watt light bulb for an hour, you would have to reproduce that spark 3600 times. That would take 324 g of copper (3/4 of a pound) and half a cup of water to light a little bit brighter than normal light bulb for an hour. And that assumes that 100% of the light is turned into electricity by the PV panels he says he will use.

Apparently, according to his validators, more energy comes out of the reaction than goes in. That may well be, but I'm thinking that most of that would be from the energy release from burning the copper with the arc welder, just like a match gives off more heat and light than goes in to lighting it.

So, don't give up hope. I'm confident that someone will figure out how to produce clean energy one day. I think you and I will be gone by then, though.

[DEFCON]

I too will continue to remain hopeful Inchman, but while we're doing that, how about your thoughts on the science that's really taking place in the present time in so many garages. Youtube has many, many video examples available in which conventional gasoline / diesel engines converted to run on pure water are demonstrated. Why is this technology being ignored by the mainstream? Did you ever get a chance to meet 'Vern, the flying farmer', back in the FEX days?

Here's a 2 minute video that may very well change the way you see the present state of affairs with respect to energy production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHUwLh7kIZo

I maintain, the future is here with us in the present; we're just too busy believing the word of those that keep us busy pursuing mindless nonsense.....blinders on.

[boestar]

Anyone who has studied anything to do with aircraft propulsion systems know that Water and Methanol and Water/Methanol injection systems have been around for many many years. The main purpose of those systems is to lower the intake temperatures and increase combustion pressures to create more power without creating more heat. Their role as a "Catalyst" is extremely limited. I suppose oxygen can be taken from the water during the process but that is far from efficient. A more efficient way to increase oxygenation of the combution gasses to increase power is the addition of nitrous Oxide to the intake stream. When it reacts in the Combustion process it releases its oxygen readily. however is also releases a buttload of heat in the process. Thats why you see so many little honda racerboys burning oil.

I don't pretend to know anything about running a regular otto cycle engine on water alone but I have my doubts on any kind of efficiency.

Besides. We need water more than we need oil.

[DEFCON]

Two parts hydrogen & 1 part oxygen. The fuel and oxidizer all in one handy little enviro-friendly package.

It seems to me that if we were to spend even a billion bucks developing water technology, we'd be there for certain, but then that might interfere with all the war and profit that flows from the production, distribution and burning of fossil fuels and the 1% gang wouldn't like that too much; it's better to provide the oil industry with 11B in subsidies I guess?

Imagine the new range numbers for aircraft and how much cheaper the tickets would be. Fixing fuel tank leaks wouldn't be such a terrible and dangerous gig either.

[Don Hudson]

"The fuel and oxidizer all in one handy little enviro-friendly package."

I think that's how the oceans arrived, isn't it?

[boestar]

yes both molecules are there but they are bound together into a stable compound. Releasing them from that compound is where the inefficiency kicks in. heating water does not break the bond at least not fully or well. As we know electrolysis requires more energy to separate the molecules than they will ever produce.

[DEFCON]

Boestar

I know that you're mechanically inclined. All the technical answers to those questions are available on the internet.

This is only general, but the water molecule is split in a device that is designed, remember I'm being general, as follows:

Into an approximate two gallon aquarium add, something on the order of 100 stacked 8" X 8" X 1/8" stainless steel plates. Attach a low voltage 'buzzer to the plates, two gallons of distilled water, a little bit of a certain type of sodium and electricity to the mix in a DC, very low voltage, but higher amperage current. Turn on the buzzer.

The current in electrolyte causes the molecule to split and the gas to adhere to the plates. The buzzer keeps the gas moving and rising to the surface where it's collected and funnelled to the intake. Note, the gas cannot be stored in any conventional sense. The circuit is self sustaining; it does not require any additional energy.

I'm going to see if I can come up with something more detailed for you..

[boestar]

I call BS. It is breaking some of the physical laws of thermodynamics. If they are creating a self sustaining energy source that only requires water as an input and generates MORE energy than it uses. Then give that guy a Nobel Prize in Physics because that is the single greatest discovery in history.

[DEFCON]

Boestar

Here's a link to the 'box design'.

http://hydrogengarage.com/pwm3g/

[mo32a]

Another inventor Bob Boyce® can run a V6 engine and a 2.0L

on 100% water, using a 100 cell box. In 2008 he drove 2 Toyota Prius's on water and electric to DC, to show the big wigs, a DOD project. As soon as they found out it worked and Bob would NOT sell them his 1981 gag orded patents for his 'sealed series cell HHO designs', they decided to chip him instead. 4 months later he was drugged and chipped with cancer isotopes. Today the chips are out and Bob lives! Jesus healed him of the cancer! and the prayers of all the water car forum guys about 10,000 people on yahoo group forums.

Chipped and given cancer. Jesus healed him.

I will be with Boestar on this one. Get the tin hats out.

They show you how to do it and sell you the parts so I think if the DOD wanted to produce one they could. Just sayin...

And Defcon, let us know when you get yours built so we can watch the videos.

[DEFCON]

Mo32a

I hear you on the cancer chipping and I too wish the conspiracy types could get out of the mix. The conspiracy theorists may have a point too though as there's quite a list of inventors that seem to meet untimely ends when their activities apparently threaten established business.

Farady's Laws aside, it wouldn't be the first time that a new idea went on to become proof that a particular physical law was in error, or incomplete.

While some may call bs here, Youtube provides evidence that there is no shortage of mechanically inclined guys taking advantage of this science in their garages and basements. This is a fact and not something that anyone can say is bs.

Do you believe all these people are joining together in some kind of mass effort to fool us all when they post the working results of their efforts on Youtube? Perhaps it's the majority that are being fooled into believing this, or that and have been tricked for so long now, they're prepared to pretend they understand when in fact they're only denying themselves of the truth just to be seen to be going along to get along? This same human shortcoming is demonstrated in the example where the majority laughs at the kid asking a question that they all want an answer to just because the class bully and simpleton is incapable of understanding the subject of discussion in the first place.

Inchman aside, can anyone else provide anything other than an, I think, or an I feel that might counter all the information / evidence that's out there?

[inchman]

The simple physics are that the amount of energy it takes to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water must equal the amount of energy that is produced when they are recombined. To do anything else would require the Hand of God. Even the Sun is not a perfect engine and will use up all of its energy eventually.

The problem is in the losses surrounding both ends of the process. As soon as you introduce a catchment process for the gas, or a piece of wire to deliver the energy to the cell, losses occur. Add that to any imperfect "burning" that must take place to create an oxide of hydrogen and it can't be self-sustainable. If any light emits or any of the recombinants are not used 100%, the reaction is imperfect. The estimates that I have seen from what seem like rational sources to me are that the best case is a 33% loss. Even the cold fusion people have to use much more complex substances, including deuterium.... ²H₂O... it takes energy to produce heavy water, too.

The place, in my mind, where the concept of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, as I have said in other posts, is to use otherwise excess energy to split the water while people and businesses are sleeping. Nuclear plants don't simply turn off at night like a coal plant so, provided that they are prolific enough and coal plants are not running at night.... maybe only to cover the peaks during the day... excess energy could be used to do the deed. Since the input has zero "value" as energy, any output that exceeds the cost of production, transport and use of the final product is net positive.

If the government wanted us to keep wasting energy, they would have outlawed energy recovery braking systems for electric cars (or hybrid cars at all, for that matter), CFL and LED light bulbs, energy efficient shower heads....

Why wouldn't the American War Machine want to exploit the ability to run their armadas with the very ether they float on? Why wouldn't the Americans want to save Europe from the scourge of Russian control of their Natural Gas supply?

To suggest that they have muzzled people who attempted to bring valid new ways of producing energy are simply conspiracy statements put forward by the inventors to keep investors on side, IMO. And if the US muzzled these people, why wouldn't they simply take their inventions to the Brits, or the French, or the Germans or the Chinese... or the Russians themselves?

But I will reiterate, despite the fact that I don't accept the claims presented to date from these backyard inventors, I think we are on the same page in that we cannot continue with the current paradigm of energy production and use.

[DEFCON]

Here's a present year link to another version of the same technology, but from a source that the hecklers can't laugh at.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/splitter-clean-fuel-082014.html

"Ming discovered a nickel-metal/nickel-oxide structure that turns out to be more active than pure nickel metal or pure nickel oxide alone," Dai said. "This novel structure favors hydrogen electrocatalysis, but we still don't fully understand the science behind it."

Here we have an example of the applicability of what I'll label, the new science, one that's not yet understood because it either violates Faraday's first & second Laws of electrolysis, or is going to prove Faraday wrong and result in a new law.

[DEFCON]

Here's another one that I think is quite interesting.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/salt-water-fuel.htm

In the earlier post I asked if you had by chance met Verne back in the FEX days. Vern was a farmer, an inventor and member of the WFC. Back around 1978 he invented a device that he added to a carburetor, which he claimed would increase mileage six-fold. We all thought Vern was more than a little optimistic amongst other things, that is until Verne's life took a sudden turn that made his life change in a way that matched the opening theme song from the Beverly Hill Billy show. Vern told us that Gulf & Shell had bought him out for 20M in return for his promise to never disclose the technology etc. Vern soon retired from cash crop farming and moved on to purchase several major vacation homes around the planet and later invested in a fleet of business jets, which he chartered out in addition to using them to transport him and wife around. The point I guess; Vern isn't an urban legend as quite a few of the people that we know either flew for Vern, or know him personally will confirm. I thought you may have met him and forgotten.

[DEFCON]

I should add; I appreciate the fact that the science discovered by Mr. John Kanzius is only electrolysis, but achieved through a previously unknown process. These are the kinds of forward looking concepts that I'm 'hopeful' will bring us to a place and time where energy is cheap, plentiful and clean.

I'm looking for some other information which claims Honda has a project underway in which they generate electrical power from water and supply the electrical needs of a village community in the deep jungles out of site of prying eyes.

[inchman]

Here's a present year link to another version of the same technology, but from a source that the hecklers can't laugh at.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/splitter-clean-fuel-082014.html

This is quite a valid technology.

But it's not claiming any of the stuff that the backyard systems are claiming. They're not claiming self-sustainability or that they're just burning water (if you listen carefully to all of the "water" fuel claims, they all say "water based" fuel).

Sanford is just saying that they can use electricity, through electrolysis, to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen, and they've done it with a AA battery. I don't think this is even ground breaking, to be honest. I use the same technology to produce chlorine in my pool.

But something's gotta power that battery, and assumedly re-charge it. If you use coal based electricity to recharge the battery, then you're not zero emission. You're only zero emission from this point forward.

[DEFCON]

"The nickel/nickel-oxide catalyst significantly lowers the voltage required to split water, which could eventually save hydrogen producers billions of dollars in electricity costs, according to Gong. His next goal is to improve the durability of the device."

I think they're attempting to say; 'we've discovered a new process by which we can generate hydrogen gas in quantities which are efficient'. I take this to mean, the researchers are at least temporarily stumped because their experiment suggests Faraday's 2nd Law isn't a law after all.

I doubt your pool chlorine generator is anywhere near efficient enough to break the 2nd law, but the 'Boyce box' described above uses low DC voltage in a similar fashion to accomplish the same thing.

[inchman]

Agreed that this is a good step forward. But it doesn't change existing science from what I can read.

But I don't see anything in the article where they suggest that it questions Faraday's 2nd Law. They're just saying that they've improved the process of electrolysis by using cheaper materials that work at voltages previously requiring exotic metals. I think if they overturned Faraday's Laws or if they were able to extract components with more energy than went into the reaction, they would say it.

[DEFCON]

Good points. I tried to access the full paper, but there's too steep a cost attached.

[mo32a]

In the earlier post I asked if you had by chance met Verne back in the FEX days. Vern was a farmer, an inventor and member of the WFC. Back around 1978 he invented a device that he added to a carburetor, which he claimed would increase mileage six-fold. We all thought Vern was more than a little optimistic amongst other things, that is until Verne's life took a sudden turn that made his life change in a way that matched the opening theme song from the Beverly Hill Billy show. Vern told us that Gulf & Shell had bought him out for 20M in return for his promise to never disclose the technology etc. Vern soon retired from cash crop farming and moved on to purchase several major vacation homes around the planet and later invested in a fleet of business jets, which he chartered out in addition to using them to transport him and wife around. The point I guess; Vern isn't an urban legend as quite a few of the people that we know either flew for Vern, or know him personally will confirm. I thought you may have met him and forgotten.

Well if it was a patented device it would have expired in 1995 so somebody else could start producing them. If it wasn't patented Vern could pass the info onto a son/brother/friend and lead them to discover the "secret". Vern told you that is what happened, maybe he got an inheritance.

Any car manufacturer would have paid anything that he asked for it. Until Vern's invention is built, tested independently, and proven I am going to still doubt it.

[boestar]

He is claiming that the plates operate at between 200% and 300% efficiency. How is that even possible?

I can SPlit water molecules here all day with 28 volts and 30 amps (and have done) with an efficiency of roughly, oh I dont know 2% maybe at best. Mind you that is with tinfoil and copper wire. But that is not the issue. If they can do this small scale at 300% efficiency then they just solved all the world energy problems. Any idea why people aren't biting? Likely because its BS.

[boestar]

Good points. I tried to access the full paper, but there's too steep a cost attached.

And why would that be? Because it doesn't work but they can feed off the gullible.

I was once going to write a best selling book called "How to eat cookies and cake and still lose 10 pounds a week" Sell it for $25 and all it is is blank pages. Could make a fortune on it.

[DEFCON]

Educational institutions all indirectly charge fees to those that hope to capitalize on the material being offered and Stanford is no different in this regard. I try to use 'abstracts' where available; they often contain just enough information so the reader can gain some appreciation for the subject matter. It's unfortunate, but in this case the short-story was just too short to be useful to the discussion. Nonetheless, there's no conspiracy against the gullible on Stanford's part Boestar.

[DEFCON]

"He is claiming that the plates operate at between 200% and 300% efficiency. How is that even possible?"

Tesla developed the concepts of 'zero point energy' and the principles of 'over unity' energy production. Tesla called the energy field, 'ether'.

JP Morgan scuttled the project and destroyed Tesla's reputation to protect his own business interests which didn't allow for the provision of free anything to the masses.

[DEFCON]

Well mo32a; Vern would probably be about 90 today if he's even alive. Being I haven't seen him myself since about 1981, I can't comment as to his current location, or even status. BTW, who said anything about a patent?