Why is 'water as fuel' considered Over Unity?

[send_to_nice]

@greendoor
Thanks for the clarification on the plasma arc concepts. I agree, the oil companies should be scared. First, because this concept will have INCREDIBLE immediate benefits to anyone on the planet who uses transportation or pays for a product whose price is at least partly dictated by the price of transporting it, but secondly, can you imagine the backlash when people realise just how much we've all been screwed over the last century or more?

The only reason I raised the point of overunity is because it seems some really clever people out there are more interested in proving that their concept demonstrates overunity than pushing for it to become something real. A slight focus shift is all that's needed.

[greendoor]

As far as i'm concerned - nobody here is remotely interested in devices that consume more energy than they put out.  Although that's what 99% of all the failed devices talked about here can only do. 

IF a water powered car requires more electrical power than the mechanical power developed, then we may as well walk away now.  We would be falling into the establised energy industy's wishes, and burning a lot of oil to create the power that dissociates the hydrogen, etc, etc.  Ultimately, the energy industry wins. 

So I expect to see a strong collusion here, there and everywhere to turn the Water Car project into nothing more than a means of storing energy that still has to be purchased.

Screw that! 

I'm shouting this loud & clear while we still have freedom of speech ... this water plasma spark technology should be about obtaining free energy from water, which can be collected from rainwater, and not about purchasing energy from an energy supplier.

I expect this real technology will be suppressed, like everything else like it.

So in that regard - I believe the requirement for Over-Unity is vital.  Under-Unity is of no interest - we already have batteries and flywheels and compressed air and springs and capacitors for storing energy.

[broli]

WHO THE FUCK CARES.

Have you gone to the gas pomp lately? Cheap isn't it. I find it funny how there are always these experts popping out trying to lecture a promising tech that could change the world. Just so when this gets successful they can say to their friends "I was there and showed them I had the bigger dick.". Do you even understand the implications of running regular water in an ICE.

[alan]

How much do you pay for gas then?
I pay 1.60 euro for a liter, of which 2/3-rd tax

[greendoor]

WHO THE FUCK CARES.

Have you gone to the gas pomp lately? Cheap isn't it. I find it funny how there are always these experts popping out trying to lecture a promising tech that could change the world. Just so when this gets successful they can say to their friends "I was there and showed them I had the bigger dick.". Do you even understand the implications of running regular water in an ICE.

Ouch.  Hit a raw nerve?  Well YOU obviously "THE FUCK CARES" ... or you wouldn't be hanging out here at over-unity.  Why would you support the interests of the oil companies?  Or defend their thieving thuggery? 

Yes - I understand the implications of running an ICE on water.  It would be nicer than hydrogen - I will give you that.  The problems of rusting, hydraulicing and freezing are probably too great for the backyard tinkerer.  Also I doubt the compression ratios or timing or basically anything about ICE designs will ever be optimum for running on water.  AND - if the clowns muddying the waters here still insist on high temp, high current dissociation of water to H & O - then the massive under-unity will be an issue too.

There are some strange attitudes here at overunity.  Are you all government spooks?