I came across this Equinox programme on Google Video. Equinox was a science programme on UK Channel 4, the equivalent of Horizon / Nova.

This one is from 1995 and reviewed three machines that had a water theme which seemed to produce more energy than was being fed in, which according to the conservation of energy is impossible.

Does anyone know if there has been further research on these devices to see if there were any errors giving the alleged "over-unity" result?

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Ha, ha---watch a 50-minute video?...right now?---no thanks.

I did watch this programme a while ago; I can't watch it at the moment on this computer but if I recall correctly, the pump thingy is very efficient but doesn't produce more energy than it consumes; the design has become quite popular because of its efficiency, or so I understand. But it doesn't make over-unity energy.
Stan Meyer is dead, but was prosecuted for fraud at one point. All in all, no machine has been shown to produce an excess of energy after eleven years.

Take a look at this wiki page; a right rogues gallery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...otion_machines
In my opinion the producers of that Equinox film were rogues too.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

they sell a model rocket at Wal Mart that runs on water- actually, it seperates the hydrogen out of water, and uses that to launch the rocket a couple hundred feet up.
i guess that's a good way to get kids comfortable with the (possibly) hydrogen powered future, eh?

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

I watched it, and I have to say that I am not impressed.

I see a lot of claims with little or no evidence, and also a lot of the "poor oppressed inventor with the whole scientific community against them."

Overall, hardly convincing, and it would take more than the demonstrated fuzzy logic and anecdotes to prove their extraordinary claims.

they sell a model rocket at Wal Mart that runs on water

I built a rocket that runs on water

Note: Neither person in this video is me, one is one of our instructors, the other a fellow student, I was holding the camera.

Warning: Bad Language warning near the end. Sorry I don't have control of my then fellow students' mouths.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Oh no! Not bad language! All my years as a sailor, then a furniture mover has left me unprepared for this kind of coarse language!

I feel faint, I think I may swoon.



Okay I know the warning wasn't for me. I'm kidding.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

So when and how were they able to show it wasd not over unity, because in the film the inventor seemed worried about it and even got in an expert to try and get his "figures" right

This was made in 1995, so perhaps they did not know what we know now.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The hydrostatic pump was eventually tested and refined by real live NASA Engineers;
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff2000/ip3.htm
the company is seemingly successful, but has dropped all mention of over-unity.
http://www.hydrodynamics.com/technology_review.htm

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Don't forget HYPACC

Conservation of energy was known in 1995. Unless that water pump is performing nuclear reactions, you will not get more energy out than you put in. Ever.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I've made a water rocket as well. Launched at seriously below zero temperatures . (btw guys, while a plastic coke bottle holds 20+ bars from time to time, 8 bars is a good safety limit. Non-refillable bottles, that is.).

I had the idea for a hydrogen rocket as well, but I thought it was too complex and dangerous to build from scratch as a small hobby project.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Water has been the favored fuel of a spectacular number of hoax and con-artist energy machines. Anyone who can with a straight face mention water as an energy source would have to be pretty ignorant of this well-known fact, unless they bent way over backward to try and distinguish their own approach from all the scams that preceded it. For example, given that "snake oil" is by now a common expression, would anyone legitimate try to sell the oil of a snake today as a hair-growing product, without addressing head-on that obvious checkered history?

Oh yeah?

Well I just happen to own a car with an internal combustion engine that runs on water.*






*And metalic sodium pellets

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Our Locomotives at the NYMR run on water. Well, it's heated up by Coal first lol

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

-- Now that's right on the mark.

People tried to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water way back in the 19th Century, in an attempt to turn water into a fuel. But it always took more energy to break down the water than the separate hydrogen and oxygen provided when they burned during the recombination of the two.

That's why you ultimately need a non-chemical source to drive the generation of this fuel. On Earth, hydrogen is an energy storage method, not a source.

PS. I thought I read an article somewhere recently that the eeeeevil big oil companies have come up with an alternative method of generating hydrogen fuel. (Was it Shell?, I forget). Apparently they've been developing some process to bring oil up from an oil well, strip all the hydrogen, and pump carbon sludge back down the well. They burn some of the hydrogen to drive the process. It's still a fossil fuel, but all the carbon remains underground, hence no CO2. Plus it's positive EROEI. Pretty ingenious IMO.

__________________
http://amssolarempire.blogspot.com

Some fifty years ago, I spent a winter in the Aleutian Islands. The wind was always blowing. Wind powered generators in the Aleutians and other like areas could be dedicated to the production of hydrogen for the world market.

Did the Mythbusters not have a go with water rockets and compressed gas?

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I think it is all point of view. If I could use some electricity and generate enough hydrogen to get me to work and back, using tap water, I would rather do that than fight wars for oil.

We started using oil because it was here, it was a waste product with potential. The core of industry has grown up around this fuel. We could refit, but the cost would be substantial and the return does not look like it would very good. BUT! we could refit and change. Those are the big words.

On a local basis, I hear Honda has a generator that runs on water. Basic electrolosys, burn the hydrogen. It will run down eventually but the gas tank goes dry on my car also.

I think a simple hydrogen generator would be a great addition to the garage. That is until Joe Average tries to tinker with it.

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

I know they tried variations of a steam cannon. One type was a flash type, another pressurized.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Nothing "runs on water", that's the point.

That wouldn't work however.

The electrolysis takes as much energy to run as the burning hydrogen would release assuming 100% efficiency for recapturing the energy of the burning hydrogen

In other words, you would have a net energy loss, as you could never have a 100% efficient hydrogen fueled generator.

I think the concept is a home hydrogen generation system for some form of transportation. I know there is a net energy loss, eveything is a net energy loss. It has never stopped us before.

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

No, not everything is a net energy loss. That's why we have gasoline, solar power, and nuclear energy. These all result in a net energy gain, not for the complete universal system (which has neither loss nor gain), but for humans who need energy. Water can never give humans energy where they had none before, whereas those other mechanisms can and do. The distinction is night and day for a society reliant on energy. Perhaps what you mean is that if one only focuses on being able to drive somewhere, and doesn't care at all whether the energy used is sustainable for centuries, then one might not care that water is never an energy source. But for most of us, the issue is larger than just being able to drive, it's having a society that still functions 100 years from now.