Car Running on Water to be Released May 4th at 10pm EST (USA)

[evolvingape]

2) Despite you using water as a fuel, its NOT OU because it gets CONSUMED (unless you capture the exhaust - ie: recombined vapor) and close loop it)

This is just about the most perfect example you could wish for of someone propagating an opinion when they have not the slightest idea of what they are talking about.

When discussing overunity there are three possibilities:

Underunity

This means that the power output of a system, when the losses from energy conversion of the processes involved have been subtracted, is less than the power input to the system. Commonly this is described as <100% efficient and there is a net loss of energy at the output compared to the input.

Unity

This means that the power output of a system, when the losses have been subtracted, equals the power input to the system. This is commonly described as 100% efficient, however, interestingly a system at 100% efficiency is actually producing more energy than was input, but there is no net gain at the output because the gain equals the losses and they cancel.

Overunity

This means that the power output of a system, when the losses have been subtracted, exceeds the power input to the system. This is commonly described as >100% efficient and there is a net gain in energy available at the output. This net gain is what is referred to as free energy.

So, we can see from this that overunity has absolutely nothing to do with rate of consumption of fuel. So what does rate of consumption of fuel mean ?

Finite Fuel

A fuel can be considered finite when it is consumed completely within a device before the device fails in normal operation. This will cause the device to cease operation.

Infinite Fuel

A fuel can be considered infinite in respect to a device if it can not be consumed within the operational life time of the device, and therefore, the device will continue to operate indefinitely until another factor causes it to cease functioning.

Rate of Consumption of Fuel

The rate at which a fuel is consumed in a device process.

So, to imply that a water fuelled device can become overunity by close looping the system and capturing the exhaust gasses so that recombination into fuel can occur is complete nonsense.

The rate of consumption of the fuel will remain at a constant for a given value of work extracted from the system and a given rate of losses. Fuel energy is converted from one form to another in this process.

What actually will occur is that because the quantity of fuel is finite and defined by the size of the tank that holds it, the device will operate until it has consumed this fuel. If recombination in a closed loop is occurring then the fuel quantity available to be utilised by the device will increase but will not become infinite. Effectively you can consider this to be the same as topping up the tank at a rate that never exceeds the maximum available quantity of fuel at time zero. Run time will however be extended.

The difference with an infinite fuel, such as zero point energy, is that the fuel is sourced from the environment. What this means is that the device operating on this fuel actually exists within the fuel tank itself, or, has constant access to it. Because the operating device has an operational life that is less than the available fuel to power it, the fuel can be considered infinite in respect to this device, even if the fuel is not itself infinite in quantity.

So lets look at some examples to illustrate these points:

A solar powered rotary steam engine takes energy radiated from the sun and converts it to heat. This heat is converted to steam pressure, and this energy is then used in a controlled release to create the output rotary moment via manipulation of the working fluid.

Instead of sunlight, wood or coal can be used. Both of these are fuels in a combustible form and were processed primarily by the energy of sunlight. No input of energy from the user is required in order to create a state in which these fuels can be utilised to power a device.

The process of operation of the Nature powered steam rotary engine will be underunity in consideration of losses incurred in manipulation of the energy conversions taking place, ie <100% efficient. However, the energy input by the user is zero, and there is a net gain of energy at the output to the user. So, even though the device operates at underunity efficiency, there is a net gain of energy at the output to the user. Therefore the user has gained free energy, and the cost has been paid by the universe.

So, free energy devices do exist and have existed for a very long time. The underunity efficiency measurement is irrelevant to the actual end user in respect to gaining free energy, however, the efficiency of the device will determine the amount of free energy available to be utilised by the end user.

Now lets look at a steam powered rotary engine that requires the user to input energy to power the process. If we were to use say electricity to power a heating element to create the steam pressure we need to operate the device, there will be a cost in electricity prime mover.

The efficiency of the device will be underunity due to the losses involved in energy conversion of the processes + the cost of the initial input energy provided by the user. This will be subtracted from the output energy of the system and there will be a net loss in energy to the end user.

The reason that there is so much interest in the water powered device category is that water when split into its atomic states of hydrogen and oxygen has a huge potential energy value in comparison to its mass. It is also very easy to release this energy by a simple prime mover ignition source. Water in a liquid state has a relatively high density in comparison to HHO and is relatively compact and therefore a lot of it can be carried in the fuel tank. The rate of consumption of the HHO and the water are not the same as they have two different volume constants at atmospheric pressure.

The ability to process fuel is what this is all about. This is the reason that steam engines were phased out and oil based engines were phased in. Oil is hard to get and energy intensive to process, therefore, it is not a fuel source that the common man can utilise to power a device. If water could be used instead then a fuel that is easy to get and available to power a device 24/7/365 would be in the hands of the common man.

The key point is that because the relative energy content of water in its atomic state has such a high energy value there is a real possibility for the common man to process this fuel on demand to power a device. Combine this with the very low rate of consumption of the water in its natural liquid state at atmospheric pressure and you have a fuel that can power a device for a very long time before that fuel needs to be replenished.

The challenge is to design a system that can process this fuel on demand where the losses and input energy to the system are less than the energy gained at the output of the system. This would mean that for a system that operates with 10% losses then 110% energy would need to be liberated in order to achieve measurable unity at 100% system output.

As soon as you reach 111% energy liberation in the operation of the system then you have gained 1% free energy, above and beyond what it requires to operate that system at equilibrium.

So we can already get free energy from fuel that does not require processing but this fuel either requires collection or is only available in certain parts of the world (ie deserts for sunlight) or is only available for a limited time each day. The sun does not shine at night.

On demand processing of the fuel in an overunity system is the aim of the energy freedom game in respect to water powered devices.

RM

[ramset]

RM
Not that you didn't do just fine,But if your gonna cook a goose
I like this one,
http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/super-crispy-roasted-goose/Detail.aspx

CRISPY!!

Chet

[ElectricGoose]

@Evolving Ape

I don't know why you got up on your high horse and took exception to my post.  I actually agree with most of what you say and I am quite well aware of what OU means so calm down.
Of course there is always power expenditure to run a device whether it be in the form of friction (if we are looking at a gravity wheel), or electrical current on a circuit.

I was abbreviated in my statement about OU and 'consumption' (which I dont like the word anyway) because in reality NOTHING ever gets consumed, it only APPEARS to be consumed (like burning a piece of wood).  'Conversion' is much more appropriate.

Not that I have to explain anything to you wankers, but the reason CONSUMPTION is important to me (no matter how small) is  - What is the point of making a OU energy device if for instance you can only run it on something like plutonium or another expensive power source that is polluting?  What are the potential waste products of the device??

I trusted I wouldnt have to expand on it without morons becoming upset because this isnt the real issue here anyway.

@Ramset - Grow up and go back to your dreams of TPU shit.  If you really knew the meaning of OU, rather than posting crapulent remarks, you would sit quiet for a few moments and not even bother with a TPU because smashing together 3 frequencies and pouring in more energy to a device than you can get out does not OU make.

[ramset]

HHMMMMMmmm..............
We are most definately not birds of a feather ..
To see you in the same thread as Evolvingape ,a completely "selfless "
Humanitarian who spends countless hours researching analyzing etc and brings his Vast knowledge to Us Open Source ,No strings attached..............
Really puts you in a bad light!

You claim to have a secret ,your like a little kid that "taunts" the others!

Seems to be your only contribution at this forum?

Your Goose is Cooked Bud, You just don't know it yet!
Get used to the heat!!

Chet

[evolvingape]

Hi E-Goose,

I took exception to your post because your post was demonstrably wrong. It does not do the OU movement any favours at all to post information you know to be incorrect, especially for the “interested kids” with curious minds just beginning to explore this subject.

If your post was abbreviated incorrectly then it was you who did that because I took the quote directly from your post, not a reproduction by someone else. I do agree with you that conversion is a much more accurate term than consumption.

I also agree with you that a power source that pollutes is neither desirable or necessary. In my opinion anyone pursuing a polluting technology for OU is wasting their time and resources, as it will become obsolete the moment a clean energy source becomes open source.

There is also no need to swear at me or call me a moron. If you had expanded on your original incorrect abbreviation in the first place, with what you actually meant, then you could have avoided upsetting yourself.

So what do you say we forget about our disagreement and get back on topic, you got an opinion on whether Mr X = FF or not ?

RM