This is another 'water' car hoax. Water does not burn. The guy didn't invent anything of use. It's just loonie conspiracy theorists making up a story about the 'inventor' being killed by oil companies.

This just shows how bad the media is. They just make a story out of any claim instead of asking a group of scientific experts if this is real or a hoax.

 

This is psuedoscientific conspiratorial garbage.The false claims made by these supposed miracle engines can be divided as such:

-Bad mathematics

-Bad electrochemistry

-Bad electromagnetics

-Bad thermodynamics

These will be examined individually.

Bearden, the creator of the MEG, claimed he could violate the laws of thermodynamics. Because this violates the normal laws of electromagnetism, Bearden suggested the "vacuum energy" associated with the device could overturn the normal propositions of thermodynamics.  As every student of Maxwell's equations knows, fields of electromagnetic induction do not allow over-unity. The concept of vacuum energy is well understood in Cosmology, but Bearden offers no evidence whatsoever for the claim that a MEG operates on "vacuum energy". The claim is untestable, and has no predictions that we can employ. The proposition is completely useless. There is no way to verify it. Bearden is not formally trained in physics, which wouldn't matter so much were it not for the fact that his mathematical explanation for the MEG (which I have examined) is literally a non sequitur. There are no working prototypes of the device. Nobody has ever seen Bearden demonstrate the working MEG and the concept of vacuum energy allowing for the violation of thermodynamics in classical electromagnetism is highly dubious. Bearden did explicitly claim in the patent that the MEG constitutes such a violation. The MEG is simply the last in a long list of supposed perpetual motion machines, none of which actually delivered anything. If such a device worked, it would be absolutely fantastic, don't get me wrong, but it is necessary to keep a calm and rational mind and examine the facts: And the facts are that there is no working model of the device, there is no testability to the theory propogated to explain its supposed workings, and there is no substantial mathematical basis for the assertions that support it. In short, if it were real, it would have delivered by now. It's been six years.

The claims behind his electrochemistry are worse.

As any electrochemist will tell you, voltage is really a measure of potential difference between electrical charges, and in a chemical battery, voltage is normally a measure of a redox potential. For example, in the mitochondrial electron-transport-ATP synthase coupled system, which functions like a battery. Take a common example.

 Suppose we have two beakers which are connected by a wire and a salt bridge, hence forming a battery. In one beaker is the redox pair in question, say NAD/NADH. In the other is an arbitrary, universally employed standard redox pair,(2e+2H+ <==>H2), whose redox potential is arbitrarily assigned as zero. There is a voltmeter on the wire between the two beakers. If electrons flow from NADH to H+ (From the reduced measured species), the redox potential is said to be positive, and the reduced species is a good electron donor, and conversely, its oxidized pair is a poor acceptor. If on the other hand, we are employing a different species, say (A), and the electrons flow instead from H2 to the oxidized A, then the A pair has a negative redox potential, and oxidized A is a good electron acceptor, and so conversely, reduced A is a poor electron donor. In either case, there will always be a free energy change associated with the electron transfer, and the free energy change for the electron transfer in the opposing direction will hence be the negative value of that quantity. When the reactants are all in the standard state, it is possible to determine the standard redox potential. Normally, standard state means 1M. However, since most biological reactions occur at pH 7, the standard state in redox potentials is 10^-7M. Under these conditions, the value derived is said to be the standard redox potential.

 The standard free energy change for this reaction is simply the Faraday Constant x The number of electrons crossing the potential x the standard redox potential. Standard redox potentials are for an equimolar concentration of the redox pair, so for example, a 1:1 ratio between NAD+ and NADH. Suppose there is an excess of NADH over NAD+. In this case, The transfer of electrons from NADH becomes more favorable. Hence the redox potential is more negative, and so the free energy change is more negative. The more negative the redox potential, the greater the ease at which the reduced species donates its electrons, and the less affinity the oxidized species has for electrons, and vice-versa for a postive redox potential.

 The Faraday Constant is the charge on one mole of electrons. It is hence related to the charge on an individual electron, by that:

 F=Na(e)

 Where e is the elementary charge, which is also a constant: , where coulomb is the charge unit. One coulomb is roughly

6.24150948×1018 elementary charges. Hence an elementary charge is roughly  1.602 176 487 × 10-19 coulombs. Hence the Faraday constant is  (1.602 176 487 × 10-19 ) x 6.02x10^23=

96 485.3383(83) coulomb/mole

  In other words, voltage therefore constitutes charge differences, and because this is a spatial difference in potential.The MEG was supported with some very, very vague terminology, including "voltage of aether". As a spatial medium, supposed aether cannot be said to "enter" a circuit any more than it is coherent to say that gravity "moves" since gravity describes a field which is hence a non-proximal causal manifold.

This is where the principle of the magnetic engine trips up. They never gave any meaningful way as to how they would generate a redox potential without inputting more energy than the redox potential would actually generate. That's why they made these bizarre claims about over-unity, also called perpetual motion, that they could create more energy out of the redox than the energy they input to get it. But that's not possible. An electric field is an example of a thermodynamic potential, and objects in it are subject to the laws of thermodynamics just like everything else. The field induces a force on a point charge which induces a voltage gradient. The voltage gradient has a certain Gibb's free energy value, depending on how steep it is. THere is no way to generate free energy without inputing more than you get, lest violating overunity. There are no meaningful mathematics to back up the assertion of the creators of the engine that they violated this principle.

Because absolutely everything in physics is built upon the principle of conservation of energy, supposedly violated in this engine- and the principle works, the claim that the first law of thermodynamics is incorrect is a massive claim that requires utterly massive evidence. A handful of conspiracy theories and energy suppression theories do not constitute this. There are thousands of independant laboratories around the world, even private universities, which have no alleigence to any energy company. There is no way to suppress such technology. If it worked, it would have delivered. But vast numbers of claims have been made about perpetual motion machines that can create energy over the last 100 years. None of them have ever worked. Ever. 

Don't get me wrong, it is possible for entire disciplines in physics to be overturned, the way Newtonian mechanics was by relativity, but Relativity was accepted because Einstein had presented mathematical evidence that was indisputable. The laws of thermodynamics are so well established that it would require an equally viable and watertight solution to overturn them. Nothing of this nature has ever been presented and there is no good reason for the physics community to accept such claims until they are. In short: Keep a cold and rational mind when dealing with fantastical claims. When there is already massive evidence for a particular set of propositions, a strong case needs to be made for their falsehood.

We shall examine the laws of thermodynamics to explain why:

In the transfer of energy through open systems, energy is simply transferred. It is not created. There is still an equivalence between the transfer of energy and the work done. This is exactly what FLOT says. Hence:

Q=(delta)U-(W)

For any system, the heat transferred to that system is equivalent to the gain of internal energy minus the work done on that system. The precise opposite holds true for energy being removed from the system, hence, with:

Q=mcT, it follows that

For energy being transferred from A to B:

(delta)Q=m(a)C(a)(T(a-Tf))=m(b)C(b((T(Tf-(Tb))

In an open system energy can be input into the system, however, this energy is precisely equal to the energy transferred from system A to system B, hence:

(delta)E(A)=h(b)

or, in a gas:

Q=(delta)U+p(delta)V

In other words, all the concept of "open system" implies is that energy is transferred. No energy can possibly be "created", the energy is merely input into that system.

 

The MEG argument again relies on subverting proper terminology. To appreciate this we must understand the basics of electromagnetism. Let us consider firstly what precisely "charge" is and what this implies for electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields. It is necessary to very briefly introduce all of these concepts.

 

 

It is firstly necessary to consider that a "field" constitutes a non-proximal model whereby bodies influence the field in such a a way that affects other bodies around it. The most obvious and simple to understand example is gravity, whereby material bodies cause distortions in the space-time continuum, inducing a gravitational field, as the induced distortion induces the movement of other bodies from less to more curved regions of the continuum. Hence, for example:

 

 

 

 

Magnetism is caused thusly: particle charge is dictated by one of the four fundamental forces in the universe, which is the electromagnetic force, an extremely strong force generated at the subatomic level. Weinberg and Salam showed that it could be unified to the weak nuclear force. It is caused by a particle exchange between the three leptons, which are electrons, photons and nuetrinos (ghost-like particles which can pass through trillions of miles of solid lead without interaction), photons are wavelike bundles which generate light by an electric field oscillating at a transverse to a magnetic field 50/s. Electrical fields are generated by the interchangal of large particles called W and Z bosons between neutrinos and electrons, and the field generated is necessary for the formation of the photon.

 

Charge is a conserved property of all charged particles. Electric fields are induced when a charged particle exerts a force on an electric field (determined by Coulomb's Law) and this in turn exerts a force on other charged bodies. An electromagnetic field interacting with a moving charged particle creates and is influenced by electromagnetic force. In Coulomb's Law, which, like Newton's Law, is an inverse square field law stating that magnitude of repulsive force between like charges is directly proportional to the sum charge of the two particles and the diminishment of this is directly proportional to the square of the distance between them. In QM, all charges are quantized (see above) in all classical fields. A stationary charged particle therefore creates a point charge in an electric field. The particle experiences an induced force from the field which is proportional to its charge (in either direction). So:

 

E=(F/q)

 

In other words, the field strength in NC^-1 is equivalent to the force on the particle divided by its charge. It is necessary to understand this to understand Coulomb's Law. The central problem for these miracle engines is simply that without a viable source of energy,no charge can be generated.

No charge means no induced force, not in electromagnetics. If you plug in a unit without charge into the Coulomb equation which determines exerted force proportionally to distance squared and sum charge, you would get:

 

F=((4)(pi)(epsilon))^-1 (Q/r^2)

 

In English, this means that the force on a charged particle in an electric field is equivalent to the inverse of Four Pi x the permittitivity of the medium, multiplied by the charge divided the square of the evaluation point radius of the induced field relative to the particle multiplied by the unit vector in a directional field. An uncharged particle cannot induce this (div over zero). With that conclusion of this short introduction to electricity, I leave you with the obvious statement that only charged particles can induce a force in an electric field and hence only charged particles can generate what we call "electricity". What you are suggesting is not merely incorrect, it is meaningless. Electrons are firstly not said to "enter" a current-carrying wire so it is gibberish to speak of "vacuum energy" entering it prior to charged particles. Metals conduct electricity because an induced electromagnetic force can be generated by the motion of charged particles within an electromagnetic field. All metals have a sea of delocalized electrons that create metallic bonding. This allows for the free motion of charged particles within a metal. The same effect can be achieved with ionic compounds but they must be molten. Specifically, electromagnetism is generated by the 90 degree oscillation of a current with a magnetic field. A current (the flow of electrons) perpendicular to a magnetic field will generate a voltage. That’s called flux cutting. This is the principle upon which dynamos and generators and transformers work (That’s what oil is used for. Burning it produces steam which is used to turn a turbine which is used to turn a current carrying wire rotating through a magnetic field at a 90 degree junction.

A current-carrying wire wrapped around an iron core creates an electromagnet, because the current is perpindicular to the direction of the field lines. This is easier demonstrated by a motor, which generates movement from electricity. In a motor, the same principle is applied such that one direction of the rotating wire has a force acting up, and on the other side it acts down, this continually rotates such that the motor can have 360 degree spin, but only if the current is AC. That is why AC current works, because since the current continually switches direction, at the 180 degree line, the moment where the current-carrying wire is no longer touching with the electricity supply, there is no force acting on the wire. When the current switches direction, the motor is forced to continue rotating, since the forces now act in the opposing direction. It is the intersection of the field lines with the current that produces the effect, and that is electromagnetism. That is why at 180 degrees, the motor stops for a moment because the wire is parallel to the field lines. The direction of the curent must have an angular intersection with the direction of the magnetic field.

Knowing this science, I hope you realize why these claims are psuedoscientific.

EXC. This is different I think. Removing the H from H2O.  I haven't researched this at all, not even in google, none of it. I guess my question is, can the H be that simple to remove and use?  I rather doubt it, and wanted some quick science answers. I am always a skeptic.

The Magnet Engine thing seems usable.   

   

Wow DG, thanks, that was quick. So this is total crap as far as being easy to do ??? Yes/No?  I haven't yet fully read your essay explanation.    

Any thoughts about the Magnet Engine?

And where, exactly, does the energy come from to separate the hydrogen from the water?

Pointless. THe delta G value of the electrolysis of water is positive. The redox potential generated by the car's battery would be more efficient than the hydrolysis of water.You're basically suggesting the use of a battery to provide energy to a less efficient battery.

*face palm*

Like I said, I have no clue about this Water hydrogen as a fuel thing. So now, 15 mins into google on this, you can see this lay mans problem ..... This why I love RRS, etc. I am an open minded ignorant skeptic.

  I googled "Is  HHO true?" Sheeezzz , I want to resolve this .... Who can we SUE !? Don't fuck with me .....    

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Is++HHO+true%3F+&start=10&sa=N

Example, Running your car with water

http://lesterchan.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/running-your-car-with-water/

"And if Hassan Merican claims that this bid of technology is DIY crap, go explain to him that rocket scientists in NASA are also using HHO or hydrogen and oxygen based energy to power their rockets into space." 

   ETC, etc,  ..... 125,000 google replies   

  

  

 

  

Yeah ronin-dog.  I was thinking like this. See that black tar seeping from the ground. I will use this stuff to propel us ..... No more horses needed to pull the cart !  Sounds crazy doesn't it  ? ..... so go inventors .... and many said the "Wright Bros" were crazy !

      Anti gravity cars , why not ?  .....        I WANT IT ALL  

   http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i+want+it+all&search_type=

I hear ya DG, wonderful science builds on it self, yet apart from the science club, comes invention too. I really get an extra mile, when you also post your philosophy stuff DG. 

  What is undiscovered ?     Is it not only scientists that discover .... but also the unscientific curious too , as then modeled into science. The AWE rules, no matter what we call it ..... 

     an equation for love ? awe ?      yeah, sort of .... science !  Go science .....

   I am positive that dogma is our biggest enemy , and all would benefit , if we knocked heads on that ..... so I bring a sword ! Let's get it on !  Kill my dogma , please please !

   Free energy ? What is not free !  Blood, Sweat, and Tears ! What price is that? Says who ? How so ? Is life a game ?

       "Science philosophy"     ....  go away religion ....

        Water fuel, free energy ? FREE is a funny weird word. I read that the energy in a pin head (matter) if understood and harnessed could blow up the earth ! Something about Fission, I think it was ..... ???    WTF ???   

            

      

  

  

Sue all Liars, I hate them ! But who are the Liars ..... damn it , 

What? How is resonance similar to electrolysis? Resonance is the principle by which the input of energy at a frequency which matches the natural frequency of the system causes the amplitude to increase in an arithmatic sequence. In theory, an undamped system would have an increase in amplitude up to infinity. In reality, there is no such thing as an undamped system, as you can see by observing the image, there is a rate function which gives the amplitude of a system without a driver where the amplitude A decays geometrically with n, the number of oscillations since t=1, meaning that:

A(t)=A(0)e^-cn

Where c is a constant which will differ for the material in question.

For a resonating system, obviously this will not be the case, as we can see by observing this image:

Since "parallel resonant circuit" has no meaning, I shall assume you are merely propogating your affinity for meaningless but rather serious sounding phrases and assume that you mean the resonance of water to split it. The far-fetched nature of this scheme is discussed below.

Now I shall point out that "parallel resonant circuit" has no meaning. A circuit constitutes a voltage gradient such that the current always moves from points of high voltage to the points of low voltage. That's all voltage is, the amount of energy held per coloumb of charge, and this in turn determines the amount of work done to move a charge from point A with voltage V1 to point B with voltage V2.

At any rate, the question should be asked as to why anyone would construct a wet circuit out of water. Pure water is a poor conducter, which only conducts because of very low concentrations of H+ and OH- due to the very weak self-ionization of water because of its polarity. Surely, to conduct, one would use a galvanic cell with a concentrated aqueous solution of true ions (we shall define a true ion as one where the electronegativity difference between the constituents is 4.0 or greater). And if that is the case...you might as well just construct a normal battery instead of rambling on about this bizarre magic. But even then, the endeavour is pointless. THe problem is one of the amount of times that energy is transferred. The efficiency decreases with every transfer that needs to be made. In this case, you build a redox cell, to generate voltage, to turn a motor...to turn a dynamo to make voltage. This is a ridiculous scheme. However, quite possibly worse is the one you propogated, whereby the water could be seperated into oxygen and hydrogen gas. Assuming this is possible (unless you have an industrial reaction vessel inside your car, it is not), oxygen and hydrogen are, apart from flourine, two of the most flammable gases that happen to exist, and will almost certainly explode inside an internal combustion engine.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is something called the first law of thermodynamics, and then something called the second law of thermodynamics. You cannot build a machine that supplies itself with energy in a loop. Even if you drove a dynamo by rotating an alternator by turning a motor, the motor must in turn be powered by electricity, and that electricity in turn must come from...another dynamo. Which is a pointless contraption. Even if you somehow seperated water and used it as a fuel source to turn a turbine to rotate a motor to turn a dynamo to make electricity...you would simply run out of fuel eventually, and such a process would be vastly less efficient than even the current gas guzzlers.

Gibberish, complete gibberish. Firstly, this is completely incorrect. To make something resonate, the amplitude does not matter, nor, if an electrical battery is being used as the driver, does the current. All that matters is the frequency. This is very basic physics. At any rate, it is clear that you are woefully lacking in chemistry as well. If you made a system with water resonate at the frequency of water (which doesn't exist. Liquids don't resonate, but let us assume it does for the sake of this thought experiment), you would create water waves, but you certainly would not rip the covalent bonds which hold hydrogen and oxygen together. You would simply splash water everywhere. This is a very basic principle. Water is highly electronegative. You cannot break a molecule by making it resonate any more than you can split an atom by making it resonate. Additionally, this may have escaped your attention, but in order to break a chemical bond, you must do work against it. Making the molecule resonate will do work against the hydrogen bonds, but not the covalent bonds. For a purely ionic compound, a charge will do work against the ionic bonds and so you can dissolve ionic compounds in polar solutions, but not for a covalent compound. To do work against a covalent bond in such a manner is so tremendously difficult that the fuel you get out of it would be orders of magnitude less than the fuel you put in. This is sounding crazier by the minute.

"Parallel resonant circuitry" isn't electrolysis...it isn't anything.

Unless you like blowing up cars (it is fun) be assured that you must certainly do not want hydrogen for your car.

Sure you can remove Hydrogen from H2O, with a lot of engergy input. So you would need a big batteries to fuel this in a car. It will be more economical just to drive the motors directly from the Battery. The water to hydrogen to electrolysis step is always going to give you a net loss of energy. Physics 101 conservation of energy.

The Hydrogen car is coming with the resolution of many complex technical problems with generation, storage and combustion, cheaper electricity is needed too. The concept of an uneducated, backyard hillbilly resolving the world's complex energy crisis is pure hoax. But I'll admit it does make for great myth and many people fall for it.

These "run your car on water" kits they sell all over the internet were never meant to replace gasoline, but simply to compliment it. As deludedgod has pointed out, running your car on nothing but water is not a plausible idea because it takes too much energy to perform the hydrolysis. However, you can have a small system to complement gasoline. A small system will still use a lot of energy to produce the "Brown's gas" but it won't use more than your vehicle's electrical system can generate. Consider it a "hybrid hydrogen" car just like you consider a "hybrid electric" car.

In these systems, Brown's gas is made "on the fly" so it doesn't have to be stored anywhere, mitigating much of the risk of hydrogen storage.

Here's the catcher: whether or not this will actually work for your car or even save any gasoline at all is anyones guess. There really hasn't been any research done to prove the efficiency of these devices, just anecdotes of people claiming it works.

There are several sites all around the web that are trying to debunk this, and there are sites all around trying to defend this. I would hold out until someone has done some modern, real research on how well these things work. Being skeptical is not a bad thing, after all.

We know this doesn't work.

The reason why we see this 'demonstrated' as a 'supplement' is that this allows the car to run by the normal means , which keeps the battery charged so it can continue to provide the energy to drive the electrolysis cell. So the engine keeps running, and it is not obvious without doing measurements of energy flows, or perhaps gas consumption, that the electrolysis system represents an energy drain on the system, not a boost.

It you tried to to run it by itself, this would be more obvious, as it would only run until the battery discharged. If you start with a big fully-charged battery , yo can demonstrate it for long enough to convince the scientifically illiterate, no doubt.

Well, I read the pdf, and almost died of laughter. There is one thing I should mention first because I did not make this clear in the original post:

You cannot make water resonate. No way. You can no more make water resonate than you can make gas resonate, because all the molecules are in continuous random motion. As such, because the system has so many degrees of freedom, each molecule will have their own resonance frequency. You cannot take a glass of water and say "I want the water to resonate". You can certainly make the glass resonate, but not the water. This completely invalidates their entire project.

Forget it. Let me explain it to you this way. When you have a conugate reduction-oxidation pair, you will generate a redox potential. This potential depends on the relative affinity with which the reduced species gains electrons. If the reduced species has a high affinity for electrons, it logically follows that the oxidized species relinquishes its electrons only with great difficulty. This would mean that the free energy change in the extraction of an electron from the oxidized species is positive, but the acceptance of electrons by the reduced species is negative. The greater the redox potential in either direction, the greater the free energy change. Note that I use "free energy" in a strict scientific concept to mean Gibb's free energy, a measure of thermodynamic potenatial in terms of how much useful work can be extracted from an isothermal system.

Now, the reason I say this is because water also as a conjugate redox pair (Hydronium and hydroxide), but the redox potential generated by it is small, much smaller than the amount of energy needed to electrolyse water, making the contraption useless.

Huh? The sum total of the products at the anode and cathode for the electrolysis of water is protons, electrons, oxygen gas and hydrogen gas. None of these species can remove pollutants.

Ah. No doubt this is where we come onto "resonance" again. If so, I invite you to read my post on the previous page.

This is the good part...

This is, um, very...stupid. This isn't going to work. Firstly because they have their terms confused. "Resonance" is whereby a pulse is set at the natural freqeuency of the system, which causes it to oscillate with an increased amplitude in an arithmatic sequence. Unfortunately for them, resonance still follows the laws of thermodynamics. If we want to resonate some system such that a certain bond breaks between constituents, and that bond has potential energy X, and each oscillation supplies an amount of energy Y, then the number of oscillations required to to enough work on said bond such that it will break is X/Y. In other words, if the bond requires a large amount of work done on it to break, then the supply must supply at least that amount of energy. Which means if each pulse only has a small voltage, you would need a large number of pulses to get it to work, and such a device would be no more efficient than a traditional electrolysis where you just apply a lot of voltage at the anode and cathode. The principle remains. In fact, such a device is much less efficient because most of the energy applied by such a system would go towards heating the water, which is useless.

That, of course, is assuming that you can break a water molecule by making it resonate is possible. It is not. There is no way to construct a contintually rotating magnetic field which "locks" water in place, and even if there was, it wouldn't matter, because  the principle of conservation of energy would still apply, and the amount of energy needed to break the bond would have to be at least equalled by the amount of work actually done on the bond in order to break it. Secondly, if you make water molecules resonate (which, as I stated above, you cannot), it won't break it, and if even if you could use an electric field to hold water in place while trying to force it to resonate, it will simply break free of the field long before enough energy has been applied to break it, and even if you could somehow overcome that, we still come face to face with the laws of thermodynamics. If you don't put enough energy in, you won't break the molecule, and no amount of sheltering behind vague terminology can go against that.At best, you could create a very interesting pattern of water molecules, nothing more. This would be no more efficient than traditional electrolysis. In fact, it wouldn't work at all, whereas traditional electrolysis at least would work, provided the voltage was high enough. But again, we return to the same problem. The free energy you would get out of it is nothing compared to the voltage you would have to put in.

The rest of the pdf tells you how to build the ridiculous device. I wouldn't waste the cash.

 

 

I did hear this discussed on a podcast some months back, either a science or skeptics 'cast, but I can't locate it. They did mention something about some testing of it, but I can't remember the details. It is the subject of a long thread on JREF forums, which I skimmed thru HERE.

There is nothing intrinsically new about this, there have been many claims to use water as a fuel, 50 years or more, still nothing out  there.

The scrambled 'science' they use in their literature is enough to treat them with enormous skepticism, so until they can drive up to a major reputable university or other well-equipped institution for it to be run through some rigorous testing, I will be quite happy to ignore what amounts to such an obvious scam.

Go GO Electricity. Anyhow I am going to call some of the HHO local dealers and get tough with them .... 

Fossil fuel: It does take a lot of energy to get and refine fossil fuel, but no where near the amount of energy that fossil fuel has stored in it. FF has a high amount of chemical energy, when oxidized it is very exothermic (it burns well). That is why it is relatively cheap at the moment (apart from the cost being artificially elevated by the stock exchange), as we have to find harder to get sources of FF it will become more expensive. It isn't free energy, it is solar energy stored by organic life forms (just like wood is) and concentrated by geography.

Hydroelectric dams are also expensive to build, but the energy comes from the continual supply of water in the dam, topped up by rainfall. HE dams use the potential energy of water (it wants to fall), so they basically run on gravity. The energy, in a round about way, is solar again: the sun evaporates the water which rises into the atmosphere and falls as rain.

As to your later question about charletans being tolerated... I think there are a number of reasons.

You are partially right that good ideas don't have to come from scientists (but they still need scientists to turn them into reality if they work).

There is the freedom of speech thing, you have the right to say whatever bullshit you want and people have the right to believe it.

The media loves this shit for its interest/entertainment (ie: ratings) value. (I posted a while back about "magnetic water&quot

Seeing as science works in reality and can't solve all of the universes problems, people willingly turn to snake oil salesmen as they do promise to solve everything (even though they can't sovle anything apart from how to make money from bullshit). See also "alternative" medicine. It constantly amazes me how people totally ignore real science but can't get enough of pseudo-science and general bullshit.

It is pseudo-science that pisses me off more than the other crap (clairvouyants and the like). Dressing crap as science by including big words damages real science and helps dum-down the general population.

 

Yeah. The similarity is, that both this resonant system and a common electrolysis has a water and some electrodes in it. When a laics sees that, they think it's electrolysis. That's all the similarity, but in function, it's very different. 

Imagine a piece of electronics, which has a parallel branch, going through water. The circuit produces a frequency to resonate with water, and the water disrupts. The water itself and electrodes are parallel to the main controlling circuit. Get it?

  It's about the chemical energy of O2 and H2 gasses, produced when we're burning them. It's more efficient than petrol. The purpose it's not to make a conductor of the water, but to make it's molecules resonate more than they can withstand. Which is, when you get the correct frequency, not much. Interesting is, that a laser led to the reaction chamber (by an optic fiber, for example) significantly strengthtens the reaction.
 
 
Not necessarily. This type of reactionary chamber produces only small amount of the O2/H2 gas, necessary for the immediate needs of motor. So in any case, there's always only a small puff of flammable gas in reaction chamber and hose, the rest is a water. This is why it's much safer, than a car containing galons of petrol.

I hate to argue with an expert, but I have a lot of spare time at work. Do you really think, that all ways of disrupting the water must require equal or higher amount of energy than DC electrolysis? 
It can be compared to a lever effect. It can manage things with a small amount of energy, it depends on HOW you do it. Electrolysis is the worst possible way. Disruption of water by resonance of mollecules is so efficient, that it provides enough of flammable gas, by an efficiency of a petrol pump in a common car.

  Well, the more curious I am, how does it really work. A person intelligent enough to learn electrotechnics, chemistry and physics wouldn't want to deceive anyone. I've already seen much stranger things, opposing the curently known laws of physics, and my friends too. This is why I won't immediately reject this idea. (probably until a better, free energy pumps will be realized in practice) The nice thing about science is, that if you don't like it's current laws, you can discover some new. If it wouldn't work, Meyer would simply do something else. The factor of "it works" is, what makes poorly socially equipped inventors to go battling with a cynicism of public. Unfortunately, almost all aspects of our lives are controlled by commerce. Even schools and healthcare. Commerce is more dangerous than atomic bomb, it's a betrayal of humane ethics. Such an inventions are a greater threat for commerce than anything else, this is why they can hardly be "proven" true, when a commerce determines a destiny of everything.

Wow.  I never thought I'd read more bullshit from a member of this forum than I just have.  Resonate molecules, eh?  I bet if you resonate the bullshit you spewed enough it will take on another form, perhaps less shitty.  Wow!

Of course, but you set up some equipment for electrolysis, watch the electrolysis happen, then mutter some ridiculous incantation about "parallel whatever", and all-of-a-sudden, instead of electrolysis, you have magic! It's an ambitious scam, I'll give them that. The only depressing part of it is that human beings seem hard wired to be receptive to this kind of trickery.

Hi Will , and some say science is magic ..... like what isn't magic ??? 

     fast forward this magic video , BLUES burning h2o !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEa42uDdOyk&feature=related