Is anyone on this forum familiar with doing what is shown on this video?



I just heard of it and it is very interesting.

I just heard about this one a couple weeks ago-

http://www.energyempire.com/

Another interesting video

Thanks GM for your webb page. I found this one to be quite informative under that page. http://www.energyempire.com/hafc.html#order.


Yet is it true?

Amos, I have heard of this before, and don't think it is legit. Maybe he has another video where he explains the principle, or science, but he doesn't touch on it at all. I'm not interested in where all his hoses are running, but what is going on and how the science works out.

I assume he claims to be using electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in the water, than capturing the gasses and burning one or the other, or at least infusing it into the fuel stream.

It takes energy in the form of electricity to separate the gasses, and he acknowledging it takes more electricity to separate than the energy captured from burning the gasses. But his fallacy lies in assuming that if this efficiency is greater than the low efficiency of the gasoline-burning engine, the two efficiencies will combine to produce a greater one.

But he is not taking into account the fact that the energy he is using from battery is already created from the low efficiency gasoline engine. He is taking energy created at say, 35% efficiency, and turning it into something about 80% of that, about 28%. He would have done much better to not charge the battery to begin with and just transfer that energy to the drive shaft, rather than the alternator.

Another interesting video.

I am afraid as some people got mad at Jesus when He did miracles (Luke 6:10-11), so some legalistic engineers or scientists that can hardly think out of the box, might almost get mad at perpetual motion or even a machine that could easily get free energy out of water. I have just started doing a little research on Stan Meyers, an inventor who had a tough time with this crazy world and possibly invented something that could change both our energy and pollution problems. God likely could show man that he caused many of most of his own problems by greed closed mindedness etc. May God have mercy on us.

I'm no scientist, but so many of these energy discoveries seem to fail the common sense test.  There is a basic law that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change forms.  When someone suggests that a small amount of energy can produce a large amount of energy, it is doomed to fail unles the law of energy can be proven false.

http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm

One of the most interesting stories I've read recently involves the harvesting of energy from space.  Even though this sounds a bit far-fetched too, at least there is an explanation for where the energy is coming from.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html

I was always taught that energy could not be created nor destroyed. However eficiency cane always be improved.
The gasoline engine is only about 30% efficient if I remember my #'s right. The very fact that pistons they need to go opposite directions at quite high speeds is a total waste of energy compared to the spinning turbine. So there is a LOT of room for improvement of efficiency. And the old using H2O for power is as old as steam itself. The John Deere Model D tractor was a prime example, Using water added to the Gasoline vapour downstream of the carborator gave it extra power and helpled keep it cool. My belief is there will be many improvements to the fuel economy, energy with todays costs. (Necessity is the Mother of inventions.) However I have a tough time juddging from a movie or a sales pitch which is really legit or worth the investment and which is not. (Any other Power Engineers on here?)

The scientist at the end of the last video I posted tends to upset me as he complains he cannot understand what people are saying that do not use big words as he is accustomed to. He must have become so smart that he cannot understand simple things! One Scripture speaks of people thinking themselves to become wise and having become fools.


Concerning Stan Meyers it appears he might have been posioned. Below are given two posts about Stan from this web page;

http://www.waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=110


Post 1

I've been following the story of Stanley Meyer for some time now. I've probably seen every piece of media there is to see on the man...from his patents to his autopsy report which I ordered from the Franklin County coroner.

The mystery of what he achieved keeps me up at night.

Now his brother, the man who watched Stanley die in a parking lot after a cranberry juice toast with NATO officials (as it states in the autopsy report) is on the scene with some half breed technology.

This isn't the water fuel cell!!! Why can't anyone find the missing piece? What did Stanley know that his brother didn't?

The frustration is never ending!

Post 2

Someone asked me for more details about Stan Meyer's autposy report and I felt the reply was worth posting. Here you all go.

.....................


The autopsy report makes no mention of the often rumored "food poisoning" and the death is ruled as being natural, caused by a cerebral aneurysm (this would account for the violent vomiting in the parking lot).

However, if Stan did indeed have a water fuel cell which functioned as he claimed, I am much more inclined to think Stan was poisoned and the coroner was paid off to make it look like a natural death.

Since the coroner (William R. Adrion) had exclusive access to the body, no one else verified his findings, and he could have said virtually anything about the manner in which Stan died. However, the coroner’s report is required to have information regarding the circumstances surrounding the death...and there were many witnesses. In other words, while the manner in which Stan died could not be corroborated by anyone else, and thus could be faked, the circumstances surrounding his death had witnesses, and thus, could not be faked.

In this section, it reads: "Decedent supposedly at lunch with N.A.T.O. officials at a Cracker Barrel diner. The group made an opening toast with cranberry juice, immediately after which, decedent ran outside followed by his brother, then vomited violently and told his brother that he had been poisoned."

I find it interesting that the coroner writes, "supposedly." I wonder how many other reports he puts "supposedly" on. It is an unprofessional and unusual statement of disbelief. To me this is the coroner's way of saying to the public, "it is doubtful," which is completely unnecessary and makes me feel like he is trying to lead you away from believing the material in this section which he was forced to write truthfully.

I would love to know more of the story behind what happened that night. Steve Meyer watched as his brother vomited and lay dieing before his eyes. What does he belive? Is Steve carrying on Stan's work, but in a different format...one that could possibly get its foot in the door of big oil?

Oliver Stone needs to make a movie out of this. Now is the perfect time.

Howie, your assertion that the reciprocating pistons are the cause of inefficiency is a common misconception. My grandfather, who was a mechanic, told me the same thing and I believed it until I took Engineering physics in college. The momentum of the decelerating piston is transferred to the flywheel, which conserves the energy not only through its mass, but by using it to accelerate another piston. The turbine engine might be more efficient, but if it is, it is not because of the frequent change of motion.

If you study the Carnot cycle in thermodynamics, you will discover that the maximum efficiency you can get out of a coal burning steam turbine is around 35%. This has to do with the fact that the process takes place in an environmental temperature much higher than absolute zero (460 F below zero). Several professors have told me that the gasoline engine is much worse than that, perhaps only about 15% efficient. Much of the efficiency is lost by the pesky need to cool the metal to prevent it from distorting. Engineers have tried to develop a ceramic engine which required no cooling and thus converted a much higher percentage of its energy to power. But so far that effort has failed.

Amos, I have read about Stan Myers and understand that the technology he sold to the (government?) failed to work and he had to refund the money. If we could convert water to energy, I can assure you there would be power plants lined up along the oceans and lakes today. Of all the alternative energy methods I have heard of, that is not one of them. Why would the oil companies allow wind, solar, and various other types of energy, but not this one? You need to research how much power it takes to separate the water into the gasses, versus how much energy the gases will create when burned.

Why not put big wheels on the back and small wheels on the frunt so it is always rolling down hill. (harness gravity.) Isn't that why the old Farm tractors had so much power??

<.

I likely have been too quick too quick to believe this thing works and to post about it with researching it further. Likely also to quick to also slam the educated. Yet I still believe this thing might work. I was surprised to learn different one's in our family are trying these things.

People with good feedback on ebay are selling hho kits at a big price which I question are really that great, and I wonder how long their good feed back will last. I built a little generator largely like those being sold and it puts out so little gas that I can hardly believe it does much. Yet it could be as it mixes with the other fuel it helps it burn better and thus gives better mileage. I believe even the better generators only create about one liter of uncompressed gases per minute. Yet I might be wrong. Zerofossilfuel man has lots of interesting videos about this at this address, http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ZeroFossilFuel

I have lots of questions about this. One ebay seller has the following posted on his page where he sells his hho kit. If what he writes is true it is earth shaking but I have big questions. The following can be seen on this page
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Hydrogen-Generator-KIT-HHO-H2-Model-14A-More-Stainless_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ42604QQihZ008QQitemZ180248404568QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

Positive Perpetual Energy:
As I have revised this, I realized not long ago we made a major break through. We completely removed the gasoline tank from an electric generator (an engine that typically uses gasoline/diesel/propane and converts that energy into electricity). We then connected a hho generator to a 12 volt battery. We powered on the hho generator from the 12 volt battery. We started the generator with hydrogen gas. We connected a 12 volt ac/dc adapter power supply to the electric generator then connected it to the hho generator to supply power to the hho generator. We then removed the 12 volt battery and the electric generator continued to operate via the hho generator. This is what we call positive perpetual energy or an energy loop. The energy sustaining the electric generator is the hho generator and the electric generator is sustaining the hho generator with enough excess power to operate several other devises that draw electricity. One may ridicule this study and point out a fatal flaw that this is not an energy loop or positive perpetual energy because the hho generator was started with a battery (i.e. energy powering the hho generator initially was not directly from the electric generator). Mind you, however, the battery was charged from the generator when it was running. Similar to how your alternator charges your battery while your vehicle is running and then your battery starts your vehicle so it can begin to run when your vehicle is not running. In conclusion, if perfected, this means one could potentially generate electricity with h2o and never have an electric bill again. Far fetched? Absolutely not! Furthermore, we are not the only group arriving at these conclusions or results. Ironically this information is being suppressed from the masses. If it was not for the internet this information may possibly have never gotten released. Please share this hope with others. The hope that we do not get smothered, like so many other innovators, trying to help others, the environment, and ourselves with positive perpetual energy and other hho technology.

Here's another interesting video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk&NR=1>

Thanks Mark,

Yet the top link does not work. After seeing the second one I am very interested in seeing the top one.

I was starting to have some big doubts about hho stuff, but maybe some of it is true, and creating fuel out of water will be practicle. This is an interesting link about Honda and HHO.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/16/autos/honda_zev.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes

Amos,
I corrected the link you couldn't view.

Newt Gingrich has got it together-

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

Newt does have it together, although I was disappointed that he gave global warming a mention Finally Bush came out a few days ago and encouraged drilling and expanding our energy supply. The oil is there, let's drill and get it. Oil is the fix for now...alternative energy will be the fix in the near future. Even if we could get gasoline back to $2.50 a gallon there would still be a tremendous incentive to invent an alternative energy supply.

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

The environmental assement system is 3 years here. I think we are in the 2nd year for the one about 20 miles from here.

The price of Gas at most pumps here is $1.34 or $1.36 per litre. Multiply that by 3.785 for US gallons. That would be about $5.10 per US gallon. what are you people paying there?
Howie7