URGENT! WATER AS FUEL DISCOVERY FOR EVERYONE TO SHARE

[gotoluc]

Very good point.  This is why my idea posted earlier about a water pump system would be much easier to prove real over-unity.  The water system could be totally closed loop.  Imagine a gravity tank - say 10 meters up a hill, with 50mm pipe running up and back.  The pressure vessel with check valves and sparkplug would provide timed surges of water up to the tank.  The water flowing down could drive a waterwheel/turbine generator - and if that could maintain charge for the spark, overunity is achieved.

I admire the enthusiasm of those converting engines.  I just hope that they don't cloud the issue with failures that will draw attention away from the real core energy source here. 

I think there are those struggling with the idea that this is about primarily about producing heat, or disassociating H & O.  I expect there will be an element of this - but if that is the main focus, it will soon be found that there is no overunity.  Very possibly there is some real MIB disinformation clouding this thread already - I have my suspicions about some posts that seem to be guiding the attention off the real issue. 

If we allow ourselves to get misdirected - we will find we are using too much current, and will never achieve overunity.  The circuits to follow are the ones that use the least amount of current - preferably in milliamps.

IMO - this is cold energy.  The Latent Heat of converting liquid water into water vapour.  This is regular physics - nothing metaphysical needs to be invoked.

Sorry if i've offended anyone.  (Bumfuzzled - you better put me on your ignore list, because I say what I think - it's nothing personal).

My 2 cents from somebody just sitting at a keyboard adding nothing to the discussion.

Hi greendoor, you are right!... lets not all work on the same thing!... like trying to use this circuit to make a engine work on water. Can others please start to do other tests with the circuit. I'm quite sure it's not just for water explosion!...it can do more. Today I saw a post by Aaron at the Energetic forum saying that he was going to move onto Tesla experiment with the circuit. So lets try other experiments with it. If you find something new,  post your findings here with a link to a new topic so we can all support your work.

Thanks for bringing our attention to this greendoor

Where are you allcanadian?.. can you please start a Tesla style topic using this circuit?

Luc

[qiman]

This concept is too important to have the tower of babel fall on our heads so nobody knows what is going on.

The circuit is not overunity and never will be. You cannot have more than unity or more than everything that you have.

The distinction is this and it is NOT about semantics, it is about seeing very clearly things for what they are and keeping things in perspective.

Efficiency of a circuit is TOTAL INPUT compared to TOTAL OUTPUT. It will ALWAYS be 100% or less. Period!

COP (coefficient of performance) of a circuit or system is YOUR OWN PERSONAL INPUT compared to TOTAL OUTPUT. The total output CAN be more than your own personal input. Where does the extra come from? The environment and can only happen in open circuits or open systems that are explained very well by non-equilibrium open thermodynamics.

If you fly a kite...you spend maybe 10 parts energy to get it in the air...after that, the environmental input (wind) keeps it up...you only have to wiggle your finger supplying almost nothing compared to the wind. If you put in 10 parts or even 20 parts for an entire hour but the wind is supplying 980 parts of input...the TOTAL input is 1000 parts energy...there WILL be losses from gravity and whatever else. If the total work done by the kite in flying is 700 parts and 300 parts in energy losses...that is 1000-300=700 output...so 1000 in and 700 out...that is 70% efficient...TOTAL INPUT COMPARED TO TOTAL OUTPUT.

However....YOUR input is 20 parts for an hour and nature supplied 980 input over the same time. And there is 700 parts in flying work done (after losses)...you put in 20 and you got 700 out of the system. That is a COP of 35 or 3500% gain compared to what YOU put in...but that isn't overunity. That is simply a gain that doesn't violate open system thermodynamics.

Over time, the term overunity, like this website name, has picked up the meaning of more out than in and for a long time, it wasn't known very clearly what the distinctions are. So when someone says overunity, it implies more out than the operator inputs and not the TOTAL input that includes free input from the environment. Even though someone may use the term overunity these days, please keep in mind the distinction. Anyway, it is fairly accepted to use overunity to mean more out than we input, but at least know the real distinctions, please.

There is not over 100% efficiency in these systems but there is the possibility of over 1.0 COP.

1/2CVsquared...how many joules are you expending from the cap once charged and what work is done at the gap with OR without water.
Do that comparison and that will tell you the COP...how do you measure what is at the spark? Be creative and you'll find the ways. But since you spend energy to charge the cap...not over 100% efficient...there is no free energy as you invest some to get a bigger ROI.

Any investment that makes you money is over 1.0 COP....but an open system like an investment doesn't require that it gives you over 1.0 cop...you could lose money but you do have the opportunity to gain. What is the loss on the money system if you put money in an investment that gains? You spent energy to type a letter to your broker, walk to the bank or whatever...same thing.

Anyway, I hope that hones the focus.

The distinction of efficiency vs. COP is as misunderstood as people mistaking Back EMF for the inductive spike.

I agree everyone should work on different parts of this concept...but BE ON THE SAME PAGE AND STANDARDIZE YOUR LANGUAGE. What makes it so convoluted is that science by committee DOES NOT WORK, NEVER HAS WORKED AND NEVER WILL WORK. Do your own experiments and report your results.

Documentation beats Conversation ....old marketing philosophy.

Please don't take me the wrong way...I am ecstatic about this work and see lots of good things but it can get flushed down the drain just as fast by politics, miscommunication and lack of focus. I honestly hope this helps because one small misunderstanding of what is happening could sets large groups of people down the wrong path...so be on guard and document everything.

[send_to_nice]

More on this topic over at this thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5103.new.html

I agree. Lets not get hung up trying to achieve overunity. Aren't the possibilities of this circuit exciting enough already? I'd love for people to be able to say "it took me 3 years, and I was able to develop a water powered ICE". However, what groundbreaking developments would emerge if someone said "it took me 3 years worth of research, but I was able to prove that overunity is indeed not possible with this circuit".

[alan]

Some words again from an armchair engineer :
Why not concentrating on finding out how much (explosive) energy a single spark contains or frees?
I posted a video earlier where someone does that with HHO, by testing how much distance a weight is lifted.

[greendoor]

For fekksake - this forum is called "overunity".  I agree that the term has no meaning.  It's like "magic" - once we know how the trick is done, it's not magic anymore. 

I prefer the term free-energy - by my simple definition: I don't have to pay for it! 

Once understood - any "overunity" device will be seen as a COP >1 device that transforms an existing energy source, at less than 100% efficiency.  There is no point arguing about that.  Once the working principle is understood - it will be viewed with contempt, just like heatpumps.  Heatpumps are free energy by my definition - and there is absolutely nothing to stop us connecting the output back into the input for self sustaining operation.  The drinking bird, or Minto Wheel, is a self sustaing perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind - and the over-unity prize should have been given out years ago.

Arguing semantics is useless.  What I do NOT want to see is a dozen failed frustrated attempts at getting an ICE motor to run on water, and this whole thread being declared a nonsense.  There is a principle here that blows my mind, and I want to build the best implementation of that idea.  I just don't believe that taking an existing ICE engine is the best way, but it's a "way" - and good luck to those trying.

Does anyone truely think that the powers that rule this planet will let this thread change the world?  Will we see trucks and trains and boats and planes running on water power alone - leaving a trail of pure energised water behind them in the near future?  I hope so - but I can't see the Bush Oil administration allowing that to happen without war breaking out.  So how do you think they will smear this sort of information?  I have no doubt it's already begun.

The working principle that I see uncovered here is the latent heat in water.  Which comes from ambient heat.  Which comes from solar.  This is a water planet - irradiated with energy from the sun 24/7.  It's all around us - and this is a huge breakthrough revelation for me.  Excuse me for getting excited about it.

So yes: it's not overunity.  The energy is already in the water - sustained by ambiant heat, which is Solar.  In that regard, it's not too different from heat pumps or heat engines. 

The questions is: can we get better than a COP >3?  Otherwise heatpumps are a better way to go.  But I suspect we can get much greater than COP 3.

Graneau have spelled it out for anyone to understand.