URGENT! WATER AS FUEL DISCOVERY FOR EVERYONE TO SHARE

[Koen1]

Maybe capacitor70 removed them himself after posting?

As far as I know it is not possible to delete your posts after you have posted them...
It is possible to modify/edit them for a short period after you first posted the message,
but the window for that closes in something like an hour or so, and after that, as
far as I know, the only persons who can modify/edit the posts is the thread or forum moderator.

So if there are no posts by capacitor70 then there never were... or I am very mistaken.
There's lots of YouTube posts by that name though... Is it perhaps someone who posted here
under a different name??

[Koen1]

And what the HECK is going on here guys?!

Will those of you that feel the need to produce tons of text on the subjects of semantics,
the preferred interpretation of the term "over unity", and other bull,
please get their butts out of this thread?!

This thread was doing very nicely with Luc and Ossie and a handfull of others actively
experimenting and posting their findings and setups.
It was clear that a somewhat standardised version of the setup and its test results is what
"we" were working towards,
and after that the next step would be testing implementations of the circuit with actual
engines.

Please do not pollute the thread with arguments over what isand is not OU etc.
There's other threads for that discussion.
Thanks.

[k4zep]

Burn these words into your brain (cut from the Graneau experiment pdf):

Note the big difference between 50 Joules and 10 kilo Joules (10,000 Joules).  Don't miss this point - because that is what the misdirectors want you to lose sight of.  If you are blowing up inverters and using mains AC for brute force - you are mistaken, or are intentionally trying to misdirect research.

Right on Greendoor,

What everyone is missing is that you have to place water IN the spark, not around it. The more I read and see, indicates that what is going on has very little to do with "burning" the water.  The engines that run via Carb. or direct dribbling of water into the intake are drowning in water, and by chance enough gets around or on the plug to obtain the effect.  I suspect that water around the spark is useless.  What is needed is a totally different spark plug/water holder to cause this type of reaction reliably!  To get a 50 J discharge requires 100VDC @ 10,000 mfd....give or take but that is to big an explosion as I don't think many pistons can hold up to a mechanical equivalent pulse of a 10,000 J pulse.....So a smaller pulse is needed, probably in the 5-10 J area.  So back up gang, put your thinking caps on!  It would appear we are NOT burning water as there is little if no heat, we are exploding water and releasing  energy from within as so ably discussed in several post lately!  This also suggest we don't need compression, just conversion from pressure to motion!!!!  Is all of this discussion what Stanley Meyer discovered?  Are we reinventing the wheel!?

Ben

Ben

[AhuraMazda]

Quite so.
If you think the spark is to start some kind of ignition, you are on the wrong track!.

[callanan]

Right on Greendoor,

What everyone is missing is that you have to place water IN the spark, not around it. The more I read and see, indicates that what is going on has very little to do with "burning" the water.  The engines that run via Carb. or direct dribbling of water into the intake are drowning in water, and by chance enough gets around or on the plug to obtain the effect.  I suspect that water around the spark is useless.  What is needed is a totally different spark plug/water holder to cause this type of reaction reliably!  To get a 50 J discharge requires 100VDC @ 10,000 mfd....give or take but that is to big an explosion as I don't think many pistons can hold up to a mechanical equivalent pulse of a 10,000 J pulse.....So a smaller pulse is needed, probably in the 5-10 J area.  So back up gang, put your thinking caps on!  It would appear we are NOT burning water as there is little if no heat, we are exploding water and releasing  energy from within as so ably discussed in several post lately!  This also suggest we don't need compression, just conversion from pressure to motion!!!!  Is all of this discussion what Stanley Meyer discovered?  Are we reinventing the wheel!?

Ben

Ben

Hi Ben and all,

You are 100% correct! I have just spent the last 2 days testing two different engines. A 2 stroke line trimmer engine and a 4 stroke 6.5 HP generator engine. The largest pressure blasts on the piston were observed only when the cylinder gets flooded with water by inserting a tube into the inlet manifold and allowing the water to basically trickle in. Air fuel mixture has very little use so the carbies were useless and required to be removed so I could be sure the liquid water was getting in. At least for the motors I was using. An ultrasonic cool mister was used and pressurised fog into the inlet manifold. This made no diffrence to the pressure power of the spark plug discharges. Only when flooding water was injected into the cylinder and made contact in and around the spark gap did the largest blasts occur. But not large enough to drive the flywheel with any decent power to run. Capacitor discharges of up to 500uf were used.

So much more work to do. Too many variables here, such as how the water may flow in the cylinder and how it winds up making contact with the spark plug. Where the spark plug is located. The orientation of the enigine, cylinder, inlet, outlet, spark plug.....?

Regards,

Ossie