Almost free energy reported on Main Stream Media

[syrwong]

RT is MSM because it has the largest audience on the internet. It reports a brazilian man who has invented a powerful engine that runs on water. The description is:

Called the 'T Power H20,' the design features a combination of water and a single, external car battery used to produce electricity and separate the hydrogen from the water molecule. The process, involving a pipe-system, results in combustion which subsequently creates the energy necessary to power the bike.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV8rpumumxo

[lucidity]

RT is MSM because it has the largest audience on the internet. It reports a brazilian man who has invented a powerful engine that runs on water. The description is:

Called the 'T Power H20,' the design features a combination of water and a single, external car battery used to produce electricity and separate the hydrogen from the water molecule. The process, involving a pipe-system, results in combustion which subsequently creates the energy necessary to power the bike.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV8rpumumxo

Hi syrwong,

Alternatively, RT is not MSM since it's not media controlled by the
owners of the mega corporations that dominate USA and Europe.
It comes from a different source... and tells different stories.

eg. (western) MSM were screaming last year that Russia shot down MH17.
.. no evidence... before the accident investigators had even arrived on the scene.
Satellite evidence showed a missile was fired from the Kiev side of the line.
Further forensics showed it was an Israeli made missile.

This story... about water powered motorbike... is excellently exposed by RT.com
It's given excellent coverage... someone, hopefully... will figure out how to
mass produce it and sell it to us so we can stop polluting the planet.
This story didn't appear first on the bbc nor on CNN nor fox...etc.
I think the western MSM would be unlikely to feature such a story because
corporate interests make too much money from oil sales.

be happy :-)

lucidity

[Tesseract]

At best, it's battery powered. If it was legit, they could triple the mileage by using a lithium ion battery. However, I suspect its nonsense.

[Earthlink]

I posted the same video, with 3 more, in the General Discussion section here, and called it "Re-visiting Hydrogen as a drop in replacement for gasoline and diesel"

[syrwong]

I posted the same video, with 3 more, in the General Discussion section here, and called it "Re-visiting Hydrogen as a drop in replacement for gasoline and diesel"

We know cheap/free clean energies exist. My emphasis here is RT is reporting it, refusing to go along with the Paradigm of the PTB. This is quite significant in my opinion. What do I mean by going along with the paradigm? When US exclaims anti-terrorism, everybody talks about anti-terrorism, even Russian and China when their joint military exercises were labeled anti-terrorist. That is going along.

[Ewan]

At best, it's battery powered. If it was legit, they could triple the mileage by using a lithium ion battery. However, I suspect its nonsense.

Can you clarify what part of the concept you suspect is nonsense?

Here is a video demonstrating welding with water.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le43MP0_dhM

[foreverfan]

If it's true... he a dead man.

[KiwiElf]

With all respect, it ISN'T nonsense - Google "Archie Blue" - the technology has been around for decades (and it works) :)

[Tesseract]

From the one and only video I watched on this particular case, the process was described as follows: Use the energy in the battery to split water, releasing H2, then burn the H2 to propel the vehicle, releasing water again. It's nonsense because it would make more sense just to couple an electric motor to the battery, that would be far more efficient! I've seen people claim the same idea in cars - it has always been a scam. It just repeats in new places with new people.

[KiwiElf]

From the one and only video I watched on this particular case, the process was described as follows: Use the energy in the battery to split water, releasing H2, then burn the H2 to propel the vehicle, releasing water again. It's nonsense because it would make more sense just to couple an electric motor to the battery, that would be far more efficient! I've seen people claim the same idea in cars - it has always been a scam. It just repeats in new places with new people.

Really? I can assure you, Archie Blue's Mini running on hydrogen (or water if you like) was no scam. (You've learned that by watching just ONE video? Geeee, that's real, in-depth research :rolleyes:). It also made headline news here at the time and was widely witnessed. It's well documented what TPTB did after that.

http://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html

The technology may not yet be perfected, but then it didn't have the billions of dollars of R&D dumped into it that the oil/petrol diesel industry has enjoyed either. Would you care to back up YOUR claim of a "scam" with some evidence??

[conk]

How about the Geet Engine? Is it real? It runs mainly on water, something like 7 parts water and one part gasoline.

[WhiteFeather]

Worth a look and highly interesting Peeps. The re modified Hydrogen Processor for your car. http://www.aquatune.com/overview.php


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nzyEueVLgo

Heres Johnny....
Check out this clip from 1978 of Hollywood legend Jack Nicholson, driving a car that runs on hydrogen instead of gas. He talks about reducing pollution, and shifting away from the oil economy. It's from the long running, award-winning CBC program Marketplace. For more classic clips, go to http://www.cbc.ca/archives
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3GDjVskYIs

Good link on how to DIY hydrogen generator.
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Convert-Water-into-Fuel-by-Building-a-DIY-O/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqjn3mup1So#t=117

[Earthlink]

Good scooping there WhiteFeather!

[Tesseract]

Kiwielf,

Firstly, sarcasm doesn't become you, if I may say so. When I see a description of a device which is scientifically ridiculous to the point of being laughable, I'm not going to bother watching the next video on it. To expect me to sit through multiple videos on the same nonsense is akin to asking me to watch another flat earth video after being unconvinced by the first one. I haven't seen the Blue Mini that you refer to and have no idea how its meant to operate and if it is or isn't bogus.

[amor]

I just love that pussy cat!

[Ewan]

Skepticism is a valuabe tool and a valid method of enquiry, to ignore all data based on one tiny sample that is unconvincing is not skepticism but pure cynicism imo.

[Tesseract]

I'd like to hear from one of you why it makes sense to split water into H2 using a battery, and then use the H2 as a fuel; as opposed to just using the battery to run an electric motor.

[Earthlink]

Hydrogen is absolutely the cheapest and quickest way to stop this insanity.

With dynamo's, an entire industry needed to be set up to convert all of these things, and production of entirely different motors was required to facilitate that. You also have to remove much of what is in any pre-existing vehicle.

With Hydrogen, for a few hundred dollars, max, a drop in replacement for gasoline and diesel does exist that can eliminate gasoline and diesel from the equation, using the very same devices that are already built and used everywhere.

Go Hydrogen. It works, it makes steam, and you can do it yourself.

Even if you spent thousands converting your vehicle to Hydrogen, you'd still be ahead as annual fossil fuel expenditures greatly exceed thousands of dollars per year now.
I'm going to convert my car, presently. I'm going to make a plated set up, housed in plastic pipe, and test it until I can shut off my existing fuel supply and yet have the car run. It actually looks too easy, and imagine never having to stop at a gas station again?!?!?!?

People who live with cars daily are spending 5, 10 or 15 thousand per year or more, depending on location and other drive patterns, on fuel.

This can completely elimminate that.

Elon Musk and others are working on this too, but he'll be the first to tell you that he's not doing it quickly enough and needs help. That's why he opened up his patents on his electric cars and battery systems to the public.

Here is his launch of the latest whole home RE battery system he just launched:

yKORsrlN-2k

[Billy]

The Pure energy centre here in Scotland have been running hydrogen cars since 2007. They now have hydrogen trucks, boilers, boats, forklifts, and much more.

http://pureenergycentre.com/hydrogen-cars/

Have a good look at the all the information on the website.

News updates also.

http://pureenergycentre.com/pure-energy-centre-announces-birmingham-2015-fuel-cell-and-hydrogen-technical-conference-deadline-extended/

[KiwiElf]

Mazda were/are also looking at an electric/ rotary hybrid with the release of their new RX7 sports car, (slated for a 2017 launch to celebrate the rotary's 50th birthday), and have been successfully running hydrogen-powered RX8's for the last few years. (The rotary engine is stratified and easily able to run on almost any combustible fuel. Due to it's smooth, circular "rotary motion" the wankel rotary engine adapts to hydrogen more efficiently than conventional piston engines).

There are also dual fuel conversion kits available for the existing RX8 (petrol & hydrogen).

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/news/a16605/we-drive-mazdas-norwegian-hydrogen-powered-rx-8/

tBcZsGsWsMA

(For those who are still wondering what the heck a rotary engine is, this video demonstrates):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCgl2uumlI#t=159

[KiwiElf]

Kiwielf,

Firstly, sarcasm doesn't become you, if I may say so. When I see a description of a device which is scientifically ridiculous to the point of being laughable, I'm not going to bother watching the next video on it. To expect me to sit through multiple videos on the same nonsense is akin to asking me to watch another flat earth video after being unconvinced by the first one. I haven't seen the Blue Mini that you refer to and have no idea how its meant to operate and if it is or isn't bogus.

Tesseract,

"Sarcasm doesn't become me?" How little you know me; I'm an expert! :) I am not apologising for a word of what I said: in the first place, watching a single source of reference and then drawing a sweeping conclusion from that is just plain ignorant. As an ex Uni lecturer, you'd be out of any of my classes very quickly for your lack of objective research. An intermediate student has better research skills... "if I may say so!"

Secondly, WE are not here to do your thinking or research for you! Most of us have read numerous books (those things made of paper) and know how to use Google.

Stop making excuses for your lack of knowledge and start doing some (research beyond one video, that is), without the negative flaming, which is little more than YOUR uneducated opinion (and be honest, this isn't the first thread you've graced us with your neggy-know-it-all "opinion").

With all respect, GO AND LEARN SOMETHING on the subject, and if you don't know, then have the good manners to put "IMO" in there somewhere before stating your opinion as fact and then proceeding to trash a topic you clearly know little about, and can't even be bothered to look at when it's presented to you (by your own admission). Go do your "homework". :tsk:

[Tesseract]

I didn't ask for you or anyone else in this thread to do my research or thinking, and to be honest I never would. I just want to make that clear, it seems important to you, as you used capitalisation, underline, bold font and an exclamation mark all in the one sentence. I'm having a good old chortle about it. At least I avoided being steam rolled by a terrifying italicised font size increase.


You can criticise my contributions to the forum if you like, but I feel that I have made numerous useful contributions here on various subjects some of which are science related and some not. Often it doesn't win me a great deal of popularity because my views are against the grain a lot of the time. As far as applying my own counter-opinion to material that I feel is nonsense, I probably only do that on 1 in 10 threads that I could - there's too much to keep up with. If you don't like my contribution, please just put me on ignore.


I happen to be someone with a great interest in energy and solving the energy related challenges of the present and future. Unfortunately the field suffers from a lot of pollution, especially in the alternative community, but in the mainstream community too, to be fair. Can you give me a little sticker for understanding the difference between to and too? I'm in the mood for a little gold star.:star: - something like that. You seek to use your status as an ex-uni lecturer to gain leverage on your disparaging comments about me, very well, I'm glad I didn't suffer you as a student, or maybe I'm not glad because you could have given me a lot of material. I don't really want to go through my own qualifications here, but if I may be excused for the immodesty, my qualifications and experience are quite extensive, I've even done research on catalytic hydrogen generation (another :star: please).

Being a real scientist will probably lose me credibility here, so I would like to add that I have also followed the 'free energy' field for more than 15 years, a lot of wagons from that crazy train are well off the rails unfortunately. Fk, did I just mix a metaphor? Fk, did I just swear in class? The idea of using a car battery to generate hydrogen from water, in-situ, in a vehicle, then burn the hydrogen to propel the vehicle (and in some cases even recharge the battery from the alternator) has been around for years - it just doesn't make sense. You're limited by the energy in the battery, and some of that energy is lost as heat when the water is split, the efficiency of burning the H2 at any reasonable power level is less than that of an electric engine, and the idea that some swindlers try and promote (recharging the battery) is energetically impossible. The earth is also spherical and not hollow. I'm not going to comfort people with an IMO, sorry. But, within the alternative realm there are some legit ideas that have endured and appear to have some validity, I think cold fusion is one of them, you might be interested to know its being discussed openly in mainstream chemistry circles now.

Anyway I better stop before I go too far off topic.