Whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?

look anakpawkis I dont want to appear nasty to you. You're probably a very nice person in a peculiar crystal dangling sort of way.

but there is such a thing as a bad idea

the idea that bleeding the body cures disease

the idea that pi=3

phlogiston

the "aether"

these things have been demonstrated as being bad because they are basically wrong, or have only been an approximation to our current understanding. We know better now.

Similarly the idea that killing people is somehow the will of "God" is a bad idea.

All the mumbo jumbo junk science you come out with is just that junk. If there was a grain of truth, it would have been picked out and polished.

0 Replies

ugh.... more video posts...

0 Replies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY1eyLEo8_A

Interesting MIT lecture for the curious minds. What you put in is what you get out??? Conservation of energy? How? Watch this mumbo jumbo demo made from junk.

0 Replies

anakpawis, I'm not mad at you, I don't think you're an idiot, nor do I think you're a nut. I must say however that you appear to have very little background in physics or chemistry. If you watch that video (or any of the other things to which you link in this thread) there IS energy input to get energy output. There is no free energy. That video you link to simply shows the TRANSFORMATION of energy from one state to another. It doesn't magically conjure energy from anywhere. There is plenty of energy being stored in the water tank above the mechanisim. When you start the flow of water, gravity is causing the water to flow from a higher state of energy to a lower state of energy. Potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy. But if you just placed stationary water next to stationary paint cans, nothing would happen. There IS energy being expended in that experiement so your argument is fully invalidated by that video reference. When the water stops flowing, the energy stops being created. The energy is being created by the KINETIC flow of water, not by anything free.

Regardless of whether or not you, I, or any other scientist can explain why, that video does NOT show any magic free energy. Someone expended energy to raise that water up to that level, and the same amount of energy is released when you drain it.

I appreciate the fact that you don't understand it, but to someone like me with multiple degrees in these fields, its as simple as 1+1. We're not trying to crush your free thinking, we're simply trying to get you to see reason. There are ZILLIONS of ways to extract energy from nature and the cosmos and you're right we need to be open to them... but these magic ways that you purport to be true just aren't it.

I will agree that its these types of free-thinking experiments that are FULLY responsible for technological advancement and without them we are stuck where we are. I fully believe that it will be through experiments like the one you cited above that we will start to gain insight into how the alternative forms of energy will be harvested, but the fact remains that energy is energy. Its not magically created, it must be harvested, harnessed, or converted, but like I said before, you can't plug your laptop into air.

0 Replies

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8621716731742040807&q=free+energy&total=3879&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

How about plugging your laptop here? Or here?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=333661567309752927&q=free+energy&total=3879&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

Thank you for mentioning you have multiple degrees. That gave me an assurance that all these scientists and inventors are wrong. Since I'm a video nut, can I see videos of you actually waving your diplomas. That's the only way I can be convince.

0 Replies

I guess if I posted a video of someone rubbing a balloon on their hair and then using the static electricity to light a light bulb that would prove to you that balloons provide free electricity.

It doesn't change the fact that energy was expended to cause the static electricity.

0 Replies

Ok, anakpawis, I tried. You seem to think that you are better than everyone, yet your references simply prove OUR points.

I suggest (if you wish to stop looking like a complete idiot) you truly watch those videos before you post them. If there is any motion, heat, light, or sound involved in the demonstration AT ALL, then your video will serve to prove OUR point since (in a demonstration like that) energy is simply being converted from one form to another. If you find a video that shows magical energy simply appearing without any motion, heat, sound, or light involved, then we'll talk.

I am very proud of the 8 years I spent bettering myself in universities around the world, so while I won't wave my degrees at you, I'm currently waving one of my fingers in your general direction. Question is... where are your credentials? What gives YOU the right to recreate all the known theories in the universe?

Now who's not being open minded? We have tried (both politely and not) to tell you what's happening in these experiments and instead of opening your mind to the possibility that your assumptions about energy are incorrect, you attack us and tell us we're wrong. I've never seen someone so staunchly closed-minded while they tell us to open OUR minds to a childish fantasy that they gleaned from a YouTube video. I have to look up "hypocrite" in the dictionary so I can see your picture.

0 Replies

lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426393169641611451&q=cold+fusion&total=1818&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I know I'm getting too annoying sometimes. The problem here is that you don't realize that you are arguing about something that we both agree on. I agree with newtonian physics.

My point is not about whether conservation of energy is true. What I'm trying to point to you guys is that many so called intellectuals nowadays are too focus on this as if you can not harvest energy from outside the closed system.

Here's a close system:
Initial 10 gallon gasoline running a motor. You guys are arguing against me that the 10 gallon gasoline (energy) is equal to the heat generated + noise generated + work generated by the motor + friction loss. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that out of the 10 gallon gasoline, you can do work pumping oil from the ground perhaps harvesting 100 gallons of gasoline.

Think outside the box. Do you think this is impossible? Only an idiot can think about this? What if we use the harvested gasoline to run the same motor, will that be perpetual motion? Do you call those floating oil mining platforms as perpetual machine? They're using energy and getting more energy out.

I'm talking about mining.

Oh, thank you for waving a thumbs up Mr. curtis73. Razz

0 Replies

anakpawis wrote:

lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426393169641611451&q=cold+fusion&total=1818&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I know I'm getting too annoying sometimes. The problem here is that you don't realize that you are arguing about something that we both agree on. I agree with newtonian physics.

My point is not about whether conservation of energy is true. What I'm trying to point to you guys is that many so called intellectuals nowadays are too focus on this as if you can not harvest energy from outside the closed system.

Here's a close system:
Initial 10 gallon gasoline running a motor. You guys are arguing against me that the 10 gallon gasoline (energy) is equal to the heat generated + noise generated + work generated by the motor + friction loss. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that out of the 10 gallon gasoline, you can do work pumping oil from the ground perhaps harvesting 100 gallons of gasoline.

Think outside the box. Do you think this is impossible? Only an idiot can think about this? What if we use the harvested gasoline to run the same motor, will that be perpetual motion? Do you call those floating oil mining platforms as perpetual machine? They're using energy and getting more energy out.

I'm talking about mining.

Oh, thank you for waving a thumbs up Mr. curtis73.

The example you just gave, is completely different than the ones you've tried to prove thus far - and completely different from the topic of this thread.

0 Replies

anakpawis wrote:

lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426393169641611451&q=cold+fusion&total=1818&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I know I'm getting too annoying sometimes. The problem here is that you don't realize that you are arguing about something that we both agree on. I agree with newtonian physics.

My point is not about whether conservation of energy is true. What I'm trying to point to you guys is that many so called intellectuals nowadays are too focus on this as if you can not harvest energy from outside the closed system.

Here's a close system:
Initial 10 gallon gasoline running a motor. You guys are arguing against me that the 10 gallon gasoline (energy) is equal to the heat generated + noise generated + work generated by the motor + friction loss. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that out of the 10 gallon gasoline, you can do work pumping oil from the ground perhaps harvesting 100 gallons of gasoline.

Think outside the box. Do you think this is impossible? Only an idiot can think about this? What if we use the harvested gasoline to run the same motor, will that be perpetual motion? Do you call those floating oil mining platforms as perpetual machine? They're using energy and getting more energy out.

I'm talking about mining.

Oh, thank you for waving a thumbs up Mr. curtis73.

Whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?
They're here. But they're being branded as perpetual machines. All the machines that harvest substantial amount of energy are being branded as perpetual machines unless that machine is called an oil rig. Conservation of energy law is being mis-used by surprisingly many gullible yet intelligent and credentialed people around the world.

All the free energy machines and overunity machines should be branded as something else. These are energy mining machines (EMM).

0 Replies

anakpawis, one of the things you keep forgetting is that no matter what video you post, the fact remains that splitting water into H and O requires the SAME energy that you get back when you combust it. That's not debatable. That's as factual as 1+1=2.

Think of it this way. (and I think I recall making this distinction in this thread before, but there are 17 pages now Smile

). Imagine two magnets stuck together. There is potential energy in their bond, but no kinetic energy. This represent the bond between H and O in water. In order to separate the two magnets (separate the H and O) you must exert a force, which we will value as X. So, once you've separated the H and O, you've expended, used, wasted, or otherwise discarded X amount of energy. So, when you combust H and O, you get X energy back. Period. It takes as much energy to separate it as you get back when it rejoins during combustion. Period.

Let's say you want to make a machine where the power comes from magnets that attract each other. If you want it to work you have to keep separating the magnets. Since the attraction is equal to the force it requires to separate them, you get zero net energy. Now, think of the losses involved. You personally would have to separate the magnets or buld a machine to do it for you. The result would be that you're spending MORE energy than you get back.

Asking a balanced chemical equation to give you free energy is like asking a swingset to hold you in the UP position AND have the spare energy to give you a blow job WITH a taint rub. Its not gonna happen... and I've been on a LOT of swingsets.

0 Replies

anakpawis wrote:

lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426393169641611451&q=cold+fusion&total=1818&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I know I'm getting too annoying sometimes. The problem here is that you don't realize that you are arguing about something that we both agree on. I agree with newtonian physics.

My point is not about whether conservation of energy is true. What I'm trying to point to you guys is that many so called intellectuals nowadays are too focus on this as if you can not harvest energy from outside the closed system.

Here's a close system:
Initial 10 gallon gasoline running a motor. You guys are arguing against me that the 10 gallon gasoline (energy) is equal to the heat generated + noise generated + work generated by the motor + friction loss. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that out of the 10 gallon gasoline, you can do work pumping oil from the ground perhaps harvesting 100 gallons of gasoline.

Think outside the box. Do you think this is impossible? Only an idiot can think about this? What if we use the harvested gasoline to run the same motor, will that be perpetual motion? Do you call those floating oil mining platforms as perpetual machine? They're using energy and getting more energy out.

I'm talking about mining.

Oh, thank you for waving a thumbs up Mr. curtis73.

You need to dissociate the machine to the energy being harvested. The extra energy is inadvertently coming from the environment (Gibbs free energy). Here's the link again.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html#c1

Or you may think it this way. The electrolysis machine is like a refinery machine. You use 10 gallons gas to pull apart 100 gallons of clean ready to burn gas.

Now let's use your logic :
Imagine two elements stuck together. There is potential energy in their bond, but no kinetic energy. This represent the bond between gasoline and dirt in dirty oil. In order to separate the two elements(separate the gasoline and dirt) you must exert a force, which we will value as X. So, once you've separated the gasoline and dirt, you've expended, used, wasted, or otherwise discarded X amount of energy. So, when you combust gasoline and dirt, you get X energy back. Period. It takes as much energy to separate it as you get back when it rejoins during combustion. Period.

Isn't it too presumptuous to assume that you can only retrieve the same amount x energy as you used?

----The world is not flat-----

0 Replies

You are AGAIN confusing the energy it takes to HARVEST a fuel versus the energy involved with the fuel itself. I'm talking about the reaction itself, not the energy involved in harvesting it.

If you are in a lab mixing hydrochloric acid and sodium bicarbonate, and making a balanced equation, you don't factor in the energy your human body expended while getting the beaker from the shelf. I'm talking about the CHEMICAL FACT involved.

You reference the hydrolosis process like this:

Quote:

You use 10 gallons gas to pull apart 100 gallons of clean ready to burn gas

The truth is, you use as much energy pulling H and O apart as you get back when you combust it. That is NOT debatable by ANY means. Like I said, its as obvious as 1+1. There is no way around it. If there is a 10 lb rock on the ground, it takes a force equal to or greater than 10 lbs to move it. You can't get around that fact. The same is true concerning the bond between H and O in water. It requires X amount of force to separate, and you get X amount of energy back when it combusts. PERIOD. There is no way around that. It is CHEMICAL FACT. If you believe otherwise, then I suggest you take ANY chemistry class where you will see that regardless of any new age thinking its just NOT POSSIBLE.

If you believe that you can spend 10 units of energy to reap 100 units of energy, then you are truly dilusional and should seek professional help. Energy is energy. You have to convert it from one form to another. Unless you are God, you can't magically create energy from nothing.

0 Replies

When I was a kid, I tried waking up my brother because our mom was calling us for our bath. No matter how much I shook him, he kept sleeping. Only later I realized that it is so much harder to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep.

From those who are out to learn...don't be easily persuaded by mere theories or establish laws. Everything are just foolish words until you tried it yourself. Try, experiment, do it, see it in your own eyes.

Google Joe Cell. It is so simple. Harness hydrogen. Even if you disagree with me. Just for the fun of exploding hydrogen gas. Do it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5203328797641586251&q=joe+cell&total=819&start=50&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
(I used an aluminum can filled with water)

And shhhhh.... be careful about the loud BANG when lighting the hydrogen bubbles ....my brother curtis73 is asleep.

0 Replies

So you posted a link to a simple anionic aluminum battery. Great. I built those in first grade. Its a battery. It makes bubbles. That doesn't negate the fact that it takes energy (in the form of electricity from the "joe cell" battery) to separate H and O.

So, since you cite this experiment as your solution to free energy (which doesn't exist), how do you expect to package the 2.4 million joe cells in a car to effectively make enough volume of gas to propel the car? That's a lot of cottage cheese containers and a few tons of aluminum foil.

Good LORD people. Has the human race been reduced to being SO GULLIBLE that we'll grasp onto anything different just because some guy posted a video that didn't even show the think working? For cripes sake, we haven't even emerged from our misplaced hatred of diesel and we have uneducated idiots posting fraud videos claiming they harvest free energy without any energy being expended. If anakpawis represents any shred of percentile of human thinking, I'm moving to another planet where the dominant species still values truth.

I'd like to send some salesmen to your house, anakpawis... I'll bet they could sell you anything if they told you that you needed it and showed you a video.

0 Replies

The Joe Cell is a scam, a fraud, rubbish. It doesn't work.

Its a simple device for separating even simpler people from their money.

This from a site advertising stainless steel bits and pieces to build your own "Joe Cell"

Quote:

We make no guarantee as to the performance of any hardware sold.

I wonder why not? Smile

The joe cell does not break any fundamental laws of physics. In fact it is entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics economics and marketing in that if something sounds too good to be true, its usually because its false.

However there are exceptions. Take the SteveOboost. This remarkable device capitalises on the work done by Fleishman and Ponds to extract energy from cold fusion, exploiting the low energy nuclear fusion reaction between deuterium and hydrogen ions to form helium. Using palladium and platinum electrodes and a deuterium enriched source of water, I have been able to demonstrate an energy return greater than unity. All that is needed to produce convincing numbers of the SteveOboost, is sufficient working capital to purchase the materials. I am therefore offering this once in a lifetime opportunity to serious investors, to buy $25 shares in the SteveOboost Corporation. Shares are sold in blocks of 100. Please send cheques payable to Steve41oo c/o a2k. Thanks and good luck.

Yes and I'm thinking of you Anapawkins.

0 Replies

lol..

With all due respect Mr. curtis73 with your narrowed view and understanding, you can not move to another planet to live. All the oil is done here in our planet Earth. On second thought, who knows, probably there's an oil field at the other side of the moon. You just have to try to find out.

lol Surprised

0 Replies

Quote:

I am therefore offering this once in a lifetime opportunity to serious investors, to buy $25 shares in the SteveOboost Corporation. Shares are sold in blocks of 100. Please send cheques payable to Steve41oo c/o a2k. Thanks and good luck.

I can almost picture anakpawis getting a checkbook out. Rolling Eyes

:wink:

0 Replies

curtis73 wrote:

Quote:
I am therefore offering this once in a lifetime opportunity to serious investors, to buy $25 shares in the SteveOboost Corporation. Shares are sold in blocks of 100. Please send cheques payable to Steve41oo c/o a2k. Thanks and good luck.

I can almost picture anakpawis getting a checkbook out. :wink:

oh I do hope so

0 Replies

as i said annapawkpuss, exceptions prove the rule. you can either accept the reality of the steveoboost or realise the joecell is fraudulent.

(or just send me the money, I'm easy on that)

0 Replies

Whatever happened to the water-fueled engine?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know