Sure, I'd very much enjoy setting up a lab to test crackpots' claims. I will, however, require a $10,000 retainer and $150/hr.
When I saw this I was extremely critical so with the back ground of my life I was able to duplicate the procedure only I added a few things.Yep, no such thing as free energy. He may have gotten interesting results suggesting something that we don't fully understand [or maybe not] but a careful accounting of the energy input will certainly show a net loss. I suspect that if the basic story is true, the effect is what interests engineers and not the idea of free energy.
What is your background? How are you measuring the energy input and output?When I saw this I was extremely critical so with the back ground of my life I was able to duplicate the procedure only I added a few things.
I did have to work on the frequency a bit to make the gas from salt water.
The one thing I noticed was his small tube of water,the idea behind any energy production is to get the most out of your process as possible.
I made a flat glass container the size of my frequency emitter and found that the depth all so played an important part.I had to change the depth four times before I reached a great gas emitting thresh hold.
To my surprise I developed much more energy than I put in.
I am now going to put every ounce of my time in to this for it will surely change our energy needs.
I suggest that you hook up the power output to the power input, and I'm sure that any idea of free power will go up in smoke.I am 49 years old and for 29 years I have been an electrician,machinist and make my own solar panels that heat homes,garrages or what ever you want to heat when the sun is out.A freind of mine who is an engineer for a local buisness that developes frequency
generators for the military and buisnesess through out our country helped me with the
generator for my project.Of course after I told him why,he was all for helping me and wanted it for his home to if it worked.As for the input he had all the gauges to monitor the power going in.
The output reading was a lot more difficult.I had to buy a small piston steam engine and make the parts on my lathe so I could run a small generator.With the help of some freinds that work at a machine shop I was able to get all of my components rather fast.
They did say I owe them big if this all works.
I was easily able to monitor the power output from my generator.
I am not sure how this works with the idea that he probably ownes the patient but I do know when I am done I will have free electricity for my home.
I can see homes all over this country self suficient with this new energy.
Just to make sure we're clear here, it doesn't just need to put out "much more energy than I put in", it needs to put out at least five times as much energy as you put in to actually break even. With some very generous assumptions:To my surprise I developed much more energy than I put in.
Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.Dr. Roy, the materials scientist from Penn State, has stated that, despite appearances, the water is not burning. Philip Ball of Nature puts it a little more plainly, "Water is not a fuel."
You can always check the tailpipe of your car and note that water comes out as a product of burning. Or visit any power plant and note the clouds (water vapor) formed by burning.
You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.Yes, you do see clouds over the coolers, but I was referring to the flue gases.
Good point. I wasn't even thinking of nuclear. Duh!You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.
That supposes that there is some mystery chemical in water that we don't know about. There is hydrogen and oxygen, and the energy required to release the hydrogen is well known: The energy that we get from burning hydrogen is the same amount of energy that it takes to get the hydrogen out because they are inverse chemical reactions.If the supposed new process is a method of extracting fuel rather than conversion of energy, then the process could conceptually have excess output.