Allcanadian

It sounds very interesting and Jim Murray is one person I wouldn't mind having a chat with. In fact I have read all the literature from every person on the list in depth. One of these days I may have to make the journey to attend one of these conferences. Of course I would like to bring a device to demonstrate which raises concerns with the border and all.
In any case, Aaron has done a very good thing here I think in bringing these like minded people together. I can only imagine the brain-storming that goes on behind the scenes. I think that if I could I would some day.

AC

@wrtner
That was priceless, you said:
while the post before yours you obviously didn't read said:
Then Jetijs said:
He obviously didn't bother to follow the link to their website and see that big old machine in the graphic behind almost every page of text.

I seems the quality of critics in this place is almost pathetic compared to what it used to be. Although it is comical to read... keep up the good work guys.

On another note even if it works as claimed it doesn't matter because there are too many motionless generators in the works and if even one works even marginally then the H2 dream is a pipe dream at best. It may have mattered 30 years ago but it's time has long since past before it even began.

AC

@dmann
I looked at this quite a few years ago and like you was intrigued by it. I came to the conclusion that either he is a mad man and this is an elaborate hoax of epic proportions or someone should give him a Nobel.

I could not dismiss it then anymore than I can now because of his years of documentation. As well it is interesting to note that his pictures published almost 10 years ago concerning natural resonant cavities found in nature are identical to those of NASA and MIT concerning the bending of light and microwaves around structures ie cloaking devices. It seems NASA and MIT may be well behind the learning curve in this respect.

Now if a person can bend light and shorter EM waves around a structure or resonant cavity which a few years ago was thought to be impossible then gravity may in fact be a possibility. It doesn't help that nobody actually knows what Gravity is either. To be honest I do not know however the possibility of some old Russian fart flying around on a wooden box kind of freaks me out.

AC

@James

I'm not sure I would agree because LNG creates too many problems in itself. Now consider the number of accidents that occur and the fact that if any part of the tank and lines rupture a highly combustible pressurized gas is released and when ignited explodes. It is a disaster in the making.

If you consider that the average total conversion efficiency is still well below 20% then we have done anything but well. If you gave me one dollar for fuel and I only gave you 20 cents worth would you consider this money well spent?.

Maybe it's about time we look at the real facts.
As a Power Engineer the first thing we look at is combustion analysis, that is what is in the fuel and how much energy does it have. Generally the carbon reduces to CO2 and the Hydrogen reduces to H2O. As such the best fuel has the highest energy density at which point we come to combustion efficiency. This relates to how much of the Energy is liberated as heat which then produces pressure.
Next we have conversion efficiency which relates to the percentage of Energy which actually performs work versus simply being dissipated into the environment as heat.

You know it's funny how people talk of technology but nobody can argue the fact that a 30 year old volkswagen rabbit diesel using 50+ year old technology still gets better mileage than 90% of the new hybrids with no batteries required.

As well the real problem with these micro-diesels has nothing to do with efficiency. It was the fact that the mighty rabbit could go almost 500,000k with almost no maintenance other than changing the tires and oil. Thus the auto-makers were losing money because it is a well known fact that most sell the vehicles near cost and profit from parts and labor. This is the reason new vehicles are so complicated because almost no maintenance can be performerd by the owner. It has nothing to do with efficiency because the parts and labor will always exceed the savings in fuel...catch 22, your simply paying the auto maker instead of the fuel producer.

In any case as an Engineer I can tell you that we have no problems with engineering a simple 100 mpg diesel car however the economics will not allow it.

AC

@skywatcher
I think Albert Einstein said it best --
"We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them"

By the same token we cannot work within a system in which we always lose. Patenting and venture capital is a losing system, open sourcing and crowd funding is a winning system. The logic is simple because they cannot suppress that which is already known and in the public forum through social media.

In this respect trying to fight suppression is a losing proposition in my opinion because were trying to play the game by their rules. If we want to win then we need to change the game and the rules. Would you try to out think a baboon by thinking like a baboon?, well no that's just silly and make no mistake they ain't much smarter than the average baboon.

AC

I worked in the oil and gas industry for many years and can tell you as a fact 90% of the people fall under the heading " Sure you can dress them up but you just can't take them anywhere". Oh they have a big house, a big truck and lot's of toys and fancy stuff but at the end of the day were still dealing with a person having a cave man mentality and an IQ not much bigger than their shoe size.

LOl, when I started pipelining I went from a lowly jeeper on the pipeline to a backhoe operator in 3 weeks. Did a stint on a trackhoe then I was pipefitting for 8 months then field operating, it was great experience and a person can advance very quickly because half of the people have literally no idea what their doing. As well 99% of what you here about safety is BS, one quarter are usually hung over and the other half are flying by the seat of their pants.

Another thing nobody hears about is what I call the "feeding frenzy", that is we have large groups of people working hard and playing hard usually making more money than they know what to do with. It is not unlike being high or drunk 24/7 and there are only two things on their mind 1) how can I make more money and 2)how can I spend it.

Eventually I left because these people really don't give a damn about anything or anyone only how much they can make and what they can buy. It's kind of like living with a party girl, the first week it's exciting, the second and third week is kind of humorous but then it's just lame because there is no purpose to it. At the end of the day nothing has changed and no progress has been made.

As such anyone who tells us there is no suppression is lying and full of **** because the whole industry is based solely on the premise of -- screw or be screwed. There is no real thought or intelligence to it and I know this as a fact because I have worked with these people from the bottom up for a large part of my life.

AC

Unfortunately the overhyped Canadian Companies Working to Save the World mean nothing compared to companies like Syncrude which is hard at work trying to destroy it. I would agree the current Canadian government is a joke in regards to sustainability and the protection of the environment.

Lol, I remember when Ballard stock was rising fast maybe 10 years ago and my co-worker said he had bought as much stock as he could afford. I told him it was an overhyped scam then and I have seen nothing to make me think otherwise. Hydrogen economy my ass, more like a government make work program for underachieving professional students. Not unlike the biofuel fantasy where fuel prices drop $0.05 and food prices double.

It is kind of comical that most of the government programs and corporate hype is not unlike the museum of unworkable devices. Oh they look fancy on the surface but there is really no substance to them that matters.

AC

I think Sterling is very optimistic however on the issue of scammers who is to say who is a scammer and who is not when we have no facts?. I have found that it is usually noted whether a technology has been proven or not which is good journalism.

It should be noted that mainstream journalism has supported scammers as well, does Weapons of Mass Destruction ring a bell?. The scientific community has also done no less and tend to sensationalize their opinions or theories as fact which are later proven incorrect.

At the end of the day I think his heart is in the right place and he does a good job of covering these unique technologies in a fairly unbiased way. The fact remains that in nearly every case we have little or no facts so who is to say who is right and who is wrong when we don't know?.

AC

@MantaRay
This has been tried before and there are a few reasons why it was not successful. When steam at 100 degrees C condenses to water at 100 degrees C it gives up 2257 KJ/Kg of energy. This is called Latent heat where there is a change of state but no change in temperature. So when we add a cold water spray to condense the steam this cold water absorbs the 2257 KJ/Kg of energy and ends up at a slightly higher temperature.

We could say we have turned hot steam and cold water into warm water and diffused the energy which we cannot recover. This is the hidden loss most people overlook and the reason the condensing steam engine is no longer used. Another problem is the fact that the cylinder walls which are cool from the last cycle condense the incoming steam as it enters the cylinder before it can do work. Then we lose again when the cold water spray absorbs heat given to the cylinder wall by the steam which has now condensed.

There may be ways to work around these issues but these are the main problems with this technology.

AC

@Mike
That's very interesting stuff and I was performing experiments with an almost identical setup about six years ago. You may have noticed there is still a potential on the plates as well, that is in some sense we can see this in the same light as a motor/generator function. The source Emf determines the function, above a motor below a generator, thus the plates can and will generate gasses however they can cyclically be discharged to another energy sink. You will find that the plates can be charged to one potential then a period of time can pass until the generation of gasses cease then the plates can be discharged. In which case as always the line becomes blurred, is it a electrolytic cell or is it a battery or is it both or neither?.

You are on the right track in my opinion and Stiffler had a setup which I had also discovered at around the same time concerning energy recycling.
Maybe I should have followed through, lol, I tend to prove a technology and move on however I can't help but think there is more to this than meets the eye. In any case standard electrolysis is definitely a lesson in what not to do and is the poorest possible way of generating hydrogen in my opinion.

AC

@jibbguy
I would agree completely, I'm not sure everyone understands what a big deal this is. In one moment we needed very expensive gas turbines or boilers/steam turbines, all have moving parts and maintenance requirements--- and now we have a little cube with no moving parts made from cheap materials. In this case there is no other hydrocarbon fueled power producing machinery which can compete, they have just raised the bar to which everyone must now rise or go bankrupt. This is why the big industries do not introduce new technology, because it produces competition and competition is bad for business because business is not about products and services it is about profit margins. It may not be perfect but now we may actually have some real competition in the market place which is always a good thing.
Regards
AC

@Aaron
I would agree, about 15 years ago when I was into the HHO technologies I found the white coating on the reactor tubes did increase efficiency. At that time there were only a few references to this effect in some journals I read dating back to the 1940's so this effect is definately not new by any means. My experience was a little different than yours as I was not interested in gas production persay but increased efficiency. It was interesting to note that in a properly tuned high self-inductance circuit the coating produced capacitive effects in which a great deal of the input energy could be recovered while retaining moderate gas production.
Regards
AC

There seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding in regards to both hydroxy cells and vaporizers, so I would like to offer you another perspective.

Hydroxy Cells:
Let's start with a simple experiment, take two 4" x 4" stainless steel plates and put them in a container of water. Connect some insulated wires to these plates then connect a 12 volt source battery to the two wires. You will see gas form on both plates and the moment the battery is disconnected the gas formation slowly stops. Most people would conclude that the gas formation is based on the current flow following Faraday's Laws concerning electrolysis but this is nothing more than an illusion. Let's do another simple experiment, connect the battery to the cell very quickly as before then quickly disconnect the battery and connect an LED or small light across the same hydroxy cell(make sure polarity is right for LED). You will find the LED will light for a second or more and this has no effect on the gas production. This is because the hydroxy cell acts like a battery or capacitor, the energy you put in is still there in the form of an electric field and can be recovered. Now think about the qualities of this reaction, current moved through the cell producing an electric field which produced the gasses but the cell does not act like a capacitor nor a battery as the charge on the cell quickly dissipates. The hydroxy cell acts just like an electrolytic capacitor with the polarity reversed---a leaky capacitor. It would seem obvious that the faster the cell was charged then discharged into a load (frequency) the more efficient the process would be because the current flow is nothing more than wasted energy leaking through the capacitance. The electric field produces the gas and the current maintains the electric field in a conventional cell but there is a better way. Charge the cell quickly producing an electric field then discharge the electric field into a load or storage device. I have built many devices utilizing this principal and it works perfectly well. Also if you start looking at various patents for this process you will see it is there but is usually hidden in the form of a resonant action. That is a cell is pulsed resonantly each discharge of the cell adding with the next input charge in series to increase the electric field exponentially.

Vaporizers:
I found my answers concerning the energy inherent in vaporized gasses through R&D of pulse jet and pulse detonation engines. Why is it that a drop of gasoline ignited would seem to have little energy yet a vaporized drop of gasoline is highly explosive? Why is it a gallon pail of wheat will burn slowly but this same gallon of wheat ignited as a super fine powder is highly explosive? Only one property has charged and that is surface area, it should also be apparent that the energy released between a liquid or solid and a fine powder or gas are not equal. A gallon pail of burning wheat cannot produce the energy needed to destroy a large grain elevator, a drop of liquid gasoline cannot blow the heads of your engine. The one variable that changes is surface area, it is also known that a larger surface area will hold more energy in the form of an electric field--charge, this is the energy gain and we do not have to pay for it. The only major issue that needs to be noted is the speed of the reaction, that is the explosive nature of perfect gasses. My solution was simple, I added a moderator to the combustion area to slow the process so I could lean the gas mixture to explosive levels without an explosion. The explosive nature is due to a pressure wave igniting the gas ahead of the flame front giving the illusion that everything went bang in one instance. If the heat and pressure wave are controlled or moderated then the rate of energy released can be controlled. What we want is a slow motion explosion, this can be done by adding water vapor to control the heat rate and converting pressure to velocity to limit the pressure wave front. A pressure wave can be limited through an expansion chamber or a seperate volume not occupied by explosive gasses but which can absorb the rapidly rising pressure in much the same manner as a capacitor absorbs electrical energy. The problem was never producing more energy the problem was controlling the energy without killing yourself.
Regards
AC

@amigo
Yes, this is a called a "net charge", if you google "electrostatics- net charge" you will have your answers to everything posted here. What should be noted however is that when a positively charged object is brought near a neutral conductor then one end of the conductor nearest the (+) charge will be charged negative and the other end of the conductor will be charged positive. This is not a net charge but a potential difference between the conductor ends, this potential difference requires a "current" to seperate as the movement of charge between a potential difference "IS" an electric current when charging or discharging. If the conductor is then connected to a source of electrons, ground or a metal plate then the conductor can be said to have a net negative charge. What is not readily apparent is the fact that a small current must be present when the conductor charges seperate and when the ground introduces electrons to the conductor. The conductor and the positively charged object can then be considered a capacitor because they will discharge into one another producing yet again---another electric current flow. That seems like quite a bit of current flow considering all you have done is to positively charge a single object or plate of a capacitor.
@All
There is much more here than meets the eye, what has not been considered is magnitude of charge. I have built the AV plug/cap circuit and can charge the cap to 1.5v in a minute or so from what some call RF energy. I have also charged 50/10uF caps from an AV plug diode grid these caps discharged in series produce a voltage of over 70 volts. The question I had to ask is --- is there any limitations to this technology? If fact there is no limit If a person could build a miniturized capacitance with integrated AV plugs and 10,000 or more of these could be packed in a small area like integrated circuits often are then-- I will let you do the math. As to where the energy comes from, the burden of proof would not lie on me if I was accused of stealing power. Is it RF---from which frequency then and which station, If a power company says I am stealing power then the power company must be polluting my space with EM energy, energy I did not ask for nor want. Both parties are not stupid enough to open that can of worms as there are certain liabilities they must assume when doing so.
Regards
AC