Energy Mirages and the False Hope of “Water Powered Cars”

By Darcy Cowan 06/08/2012 48


This morning while perusing my news feeds I saw this article lamenting the state of scientific ignorance and bald political grandstanding in Pakistan. The specific item that prompted this lambasting of an entire country is the claim by one individual to be able the fuel cars using water – and the near unanimous support of this character within the political and scientific realms – despite the physical impossibility of this feat.

I think the author of this article is quite correct in his condemnation of this person and those who support him who tout this technology as a solution to the country’s energy woes. That said I think he does his audience a disservice in not breaking down the claims more fully to explain why this “invention” is not all that it seems and why it will not act as a panacea for the dependence on fossil fuels and the deficit of energy that Pakistan endures.*

It is explained that you cannot run a car on water due to the fact that that it would require a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics. A law that is deemed so fundamental to the operation of the universe that it prompted this quote from a distinguished scientist:

“The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. ”

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

But this is not the end of the story. For while the “inventor” and his supporters use the word “fuel” to refer to the water, it is a misnomer as we normally understand the word. A fuel is something that supplies energy, it stores energy that is created by one of any number of processes and enables it to be used to do work seconds, hours or millennia after the energy was first produced.

This is what fossil fuels are – the condensed energy of biological processes that occurred millions of years ago. We tap this energy and use it to run our cars, and depending on where you live, the entire rest of our lives.

So what’s this to do with water?

Well, simply put water is the end product of energy use. It is not a storage medium it is a waste product. It would be like saying you’ll run your furnace on ash. You would be laughed out of the human race. But say you’ll use the magical liquid of life – water – and for some reason people think there’s something to this idea.

Now, what is the proclaimed inventor claiming? When you get right down to it he knows the water isn’t a fuel. He is in effect using the water as a convenient hydrogen source. It is the hydrogen that runs the car, and presumably the “water-kit” enables the car to process this hydrogen as it would petrol. The kit also contains an electrolysis component that splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen. I am unaware as to whether the oxygen released is retained to react with the hydrogen or whether atmospheric oxygen is used for this.

In any case the energy for running the car comes not from the water, but the batteries used to extract the hydrogen. The hydrogen then becomes the interim energy storage medium and the “fuel” for the car.

What we have then is the energy generation being pushed back a step, instead of being done at the car via petrol, it will be handled by the country’s power plants.

I can well imagine that there are benefits to converting cars to this set-up. It effectively turns your automobile into one of this new fangled electric cars without the downside of looking like a self-righteous dick*. There are benefits to using electric cars even if the ultimate power generation comes from fossil fuel consuming power plants (which by my calculation more than half of Pakistan’s electricity comes from) such as local air quality improvements. The ability to deal with emissions at centralised locations and the possibility of sequestering that pesky CO2 at the source.

I suspect however that in the rush to embrace the technology at issue here these peripheral concerns are not really being considered. And for a country that already has too little electricity for the population it has (40% of the country has no access to electricity, and demand is ever increasing for those that do) this does not sound like such a great idea and won’t result in everyone having unlimited fuel for their cars. It can only add to the pressure on the already over-taxed electrical grid.

In addition it is being implied (if not outright stated) that water could be used to run generators. This is where you could justifiably call fraud. While there are conceivable reasons why you might convert a car to “run” on water those reason evaporate when you try to argue that the same can be done for a generator. I’m sure you can see why. You end up just inserting an extra step in the energy generation process, well more like a loop. You have to provide energy to the water to extract the hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen back to water to get the energy. Thanks to that second law thingy you will never get more energy out of that reaction than you out in.

Not only do you insert a completely useless extra step, in doing so you guarantee that the whole process is less efficient. You literally get less combustion for your buck.

I hope that no government official is seriously considering funding a project to replace generators with water powered devices, though I gather millions may be spent investigating the possibility of employing this technology in Pakistan. I don’t know where that money (assuming people don’t wake up by then) is intended to go.

This is the concern whenever fringe theories and technologies are held up as the solution to our problems, that money will be wasted on these rather than put toward more worthy projects.

———————————————————————————————————–

* A more thorough treatment is here, by former chairman of the Pakistani – Higher Education Commission  Dr Attaur Rehman.

** Just kidding. For what it’s worth I think electric cars are really cool and if I could spare the dosh would love to have one. But I gather there is something of a stigma and well it’s a joke – lets not analyse it too much eh?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Filed under: Hoaxes, Sciblogs, Science, skepticism Tagged: Electric car, Pakistan, Science, Science and Society, second law of thermodynamics


48 Responses to “Energy Mirages and the False Hope of “Water Powered Cars””

  • There was an article on tv in maybe 2008 about a Kiwi who had “invented” something like this. Unfortunately the scientist they got to check it out couldn’t work out how the trick was done, IIRC.

  • Yeah, water vehicles are a perennial favourite. And you don’t have to live somewhere like Pakistan to find people who will fall for it.

  • I see the water car is back again. Stanley Meyer was a pioneer in this however he was poisoned in the USA. I will go out on a limb because there is power in water. Salt water can be made to burn with radio waves. Plasma electrolysis of water can in fact get more energy out than was put in. Studies done at Hokkaido University in Japan verify this.http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgeneration.pdf
    It is said 30 psi is all that is needed to run a car on hydrogen, the hydrogen goes straight into the carby.
    Water assisted drive by means of an HHO cell can improve efficiency of the gas guzzler by a fifth. I know people that have them in their cars and for every 4 tanks of gas they put in they get 1 free because the hydrogen through the vacuum intake increases power and range.
    Not falling for anything just trying to find true science.

  • The inventor here specifies distilled water so no salt. It appears to be simple electrodes so no plasma*. The rest of you comment is perfectly compatible with my post.

  • @ Derek – you will only find true science if you know what it looks like.

    The rest of your post suggests a strong disagreement with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Apply now for your Nobel – get in before the rush…

  • Ashton I am not looking for glory or money, it is not my motivation, I am looking for the truth. Science isn’t all text books sunshine. You bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics again wow you obliviously think the university in Japan are telling fibs. You must be an ostrich with your head in the sand. Here is an experiment you can do http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/ape/index.htm
    There is so much true science that is ignored. Do you know what an asymmetrical motor is ? Do you know who invented it ? It breaks the laws of physics yet it works. Don’t even start Ashton I know what I am talking about. I doubt you even know what COP is. Cold fusion by plasma electrolysis verified once again with COP>1. http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/nfrcnam/index.htm
    Don’t hear that being trumpeted through world media. Argue all you want there are verified scientific labs 2 of them, announcing more energy out than put in. Go complain to Rudolf Clausius the man behind the 2nd law.

  • Derek, the search for “truth” is a noble one but Ashton’s observation holds. Unless you know how to evaluate claims objectively you will not get very far. And yet by your own admission you refuse to get the education that would allow you to weigh these claims seriously.

  • Darcy you say “Unless you know how to evaluate claims objectively you will not get very far” ok I know what I see in the report by JLN labs and the Japanese university verifying excess heat production in plasma electrolysis (CFR). That means more energy out than put in. I realise this doesn’t sit well with the 1850 2nd law of thermodynamics, which refers to closed loop systems. But it is now 2012 and this work on CF has been on going and is totally relevant to today. The energy is at the quantum level. From what I hear fusion physics hasn’t been updated yet and the electric universe is still theory being developed(but this is alternative theory being developed because of all the holes in current theory). The current theory of the sun is bordering on ridiculous(which is where modern fusion theory comes from).

  • ok then wise guy how do you evaluate the info from JLN labs in regards to excess energy in cold fusion reactions (plasma electrolysis) with a COP>1 ?

  • @ Derek – its dead easy – has any other reputable body been able to replicate it?

    One swallow does not make a summer. Neither does one experiment outcome change the currently known laws of physics.

  • Derek, Ashton has a point but I would go further.

    If you want to overturn physics as we know it you should take it seriously enough to understand the subject thoroughly first. You may once have been interested in finding the truth but judging by what you have posted here you are now more interested in finding anything that supports your belief that current science is wrong.

    To make statements like “The current theory of the sun is bordering on ridiculous” betrays a complete lack of respect for the fact that thousands of scientists have spent their lives looking at these issues and formulating theories that have not only withstood the tests thrown at them but allowed us to develop technologies for both good (nuclear power) and ill (nuclear bombs).

    It also ignores the fact that science makes predictions, and that recently one of the most successful theories in modern physics (which you intentionally or not deride with your comments) had a prediction fulfilled quite impressively in the form of the Higgs.
    Scientists looked at the world and said “We understand X, but we don’t really understand Y. If we are right about X then Z should get us to Y, lets look for Z” and they found it (within certain limits of uncertainty – which is how science should work) with the Higgs.

    X is the standard model (one of the building blocks in that theory you find so “ridiculous”) Y is the attribute of mass for particles in the model. A prediction that didn’t have to be true but turned out that it was.

    You show the arrogance that is only possible in the truly ignorant. Ignorance itself is no crime, I am ignorant of a great many things. But to use that ignorance as a base from which to launch attacks at current science is contemptible. You think your googling and reading of crank websites puts you on a par with working scientists? Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

    So, want to overthrow current fusion theories? Fine. But at least understand what you are ridiculing.

  • Yes Ashton it is dead easy Cnam in Paris, Ronald Hohls in south africa, Pierre Clauzon, Ludwik Kowalski and Richard Slaughter in Boulder USA, The Japanese Hokkaido University, it is everywhere(I can find lots more, so could you to).
    My problem is this, I bring this subject up and just about every time I do, I get no confirmations, I get made fun of. However I bring evidence of cold fusion and not once has anyone told me it is a valid point. In fact so far it has denial of APE(asymmetric plasma electrolysis).
    The JLN labs validate Cold Fusion and make it open source and they have had it replicated a lot. In fact they have university girls doing it.
    My problem is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are so easy to do, cost effective and provide excess energy yet (maybe they don’t fit the corporate model)??? Yet is it being taught in our education system ?? No we are still in denial.
    This is one subject I am not ignorant of and I just want to spread the word.
    You bring up the Higgs Boson what a waste of time and money $$billions to smash protons together. It wont solve any problems .I realise I take shots at some theories for example apparently it takes a year for protons caused in fusion from the inner sun to reach the surface. That is just ridiculous.
    Fusion can only be done at these high temperatures, ridiculous.
    I am wondering why we get told this tripe.
    When the truth is staring us in the eyes.
    I am not saying all science is tripe, I respect a lot of what science has taught us but I also realise that the holes need to be filled.
    Replicate this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu5XvzEIfMc
    I expect from my statements I have made I will get dragged over the coals again and theb validn science I bring to the table will be ignored and cold fusion will remain a myth in mainstream New Zealand.

  • Derek, trouble is you’ve been told before – making comments here does not constitute bringing this to the “attention of the scientific community”. If you really want to make a difference do as I suggest. Study this stuff formally, present papers, publish in reputable journals.

    Contrary to what the crank’o’sphere would have you believe scientists love mysteries. So long as they are real and can be shown under reliable conditions.

  • for example apparently it takes a year for protons caused in fusion from the inner sun to reach the surface. That is just ridiculous.

    Why is it ‘just ridiculous’? If you’re going to make statements like that you do need to justify them.

  • @ Derek. I haven’t seen evidence of cold fusion. I’ve seen evidence that a plasma cloud exists – so what? That’s schoolboy (in its best, nonsexist use) science.

    Here’s a challenge for you – explain to me in non-condescending, non-technical language what is occurring in the Mizuno experiment. Include references to and, if you like, approximate values for any transformations occurring – chemical or energy. Feel free to break them down into transitional phases. Identify what new elements remain after the process.

    Please do not c&p from the existing googlesphere.

    For additional points, answer your own question (why is this CF process not being commercialised). I will deduct points for references to conspiracy theories popular or otherwise – since you attest that this experiment has been widely repeated, it stands to reason that any interested and competent body could move to commercialise with little impediment.

    Looking forward to your response.

  • Thank you Ashton I will do that, I like your response and thanks for the project. Will be working on it.

  • From what I understand Plasma Electrolysis is a good way to produce hydrogen, as it does so far in excess of amounts predicted by Faraday’s Law, when conditions are right.
    This reaction is carried out in an electroysis cell which triggers a plasma event whereby the electrons become a cloud leaving positive Ions. Also this plasma is accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds, being water, leaving hydrogen and oxygen.
    Voltage is increased and current is reduced,excess heat is observed as well as excess hydrogen production.
    It is also my understanding that with trials of this experiment excess heat was not always the case. However once the sweet spot was found, over unity could be observed. This reaction seem to only last 800 seconds, with hydrogen and heat production being less at the start and once the arc turns the water to plasma, production increases, tapering off toward the end. Ca, Fe and Zn are products of this reaction
    Replication of this experiment by JLN labs has achieved reactor efficiency of 250%.

    In summing up it seems that the sweet spot can be hard to obtain, but when it is found the generation of hydrogen and heat is excessive.
    Why this is not being commercialised yet, well there are a few companies working on this, Rossi being one with the ECAT, Brillouin Energy Corporation being another, Blacklight power, Nasa and SPAWAR research, there is someone on youtube with one hooked up to a water heater, heats the cylinder in an hour and only costs him 350 watts. I think the potential of this has yet to be realised. Another reason I think this hasn’t been commercialised yet is because a reliable long running unit has yet to surface and the gains back from the reactor aren’t enough to get investors lining up at the front door. It is a subject that is no doubt not going away and their is potential there.

  • OK Derek, thanks for that. Unfortunately you had me until “Ca, Fe and Zn are products of this reaction”

    Now I’m really confused. You started talking about using plasma to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen, then somewhere we skip to fusion?

    I think you need to be a bit more explicit in step two.

    Perhaps a diagram would help?

  • I’d go further Darcy.

    Sorry Derek, but that is not even the beginning of an explanation. Even in 5th form chemistry (a looooooooong time ago) i was taught that the explanation has to start by identifying exactly what the inputs are, what transformation takes place, and identifying the outputs. Typically the entire process can be expressed in a calculation eg (simplistically and forgive the inability to subscript) 2H + O = H2O + heat output.

    There is nothing in your “explanation” above that comes remotely near this. I’m left with a taste of hand waving and c&p.

    Want to try again?

  • Ok so you want the electrolysis chemical reaction.?
    Been researching Stanely Meyer (several US patents to his name) talking about water cars, my god he was on to something. Plasma event coupled with a particle accelerator. His lecture series deals with how to break the covalent bond in water economically. Pity he was murdered. There is open source research being done on this and when the results come out will post here.

  • Derek, yes. The reaction would be a good start.
    If you could highlight where we go from 2H + O to calcium, iron and zinc that would be good.

    How about we finish that before moving on to new claims?

  • I don’t want to derail your work on answering our technical questions but you can’t just assert someone was murdered when the evidence looks like natural causes.
    I know it makes a better conspiracy narrative, but still.

  • Hi Derek

    Yes, you’ve understood now what I expect to see.

    Lets get down to it – the basis of the claim as I understand it is that this plasma event gives rise to a fusion reaction. By necessity then it needs to take the existing elements and somehow transform them into a totally different elements – that’s the nature of a fusion reaction. There will be an energy level change of some sort – your claim based on your reading is that energy is released.

    That’s the chain of events you need to explain to me, and preferably with a simplified equation showing the transformations.

    Cheers!

  • Ok I did have some stuff cut and pasted but have decided that I will explain as best as I can in my own words. Here is the link for the experimental results and hypothesis. The products of this reaction are different but it is the explanation on this page that does it for me. http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/coldfusion/
    The products with Iron electrodes are Cr, Cu, K, Fe,Si at cathode
    The plasma event is accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds. This I think is the key to these reactions allowing the destruction (of Iron at electrodes, it loses protons) and fusion into products like Cu (gaining protons)
    At the cathode water is boiled and evaporated and hydrogen and oxygen released. Some hydrogen and oxygen combine again creating microexplosions (noise) and water.
    My understanding is as the ambient temperature is increased the electron absorbs thermal photons, going to a higher energy state than that of the atom binding it. Thus becoming a free electron.
    (Skeptics aren’t going to like this next bit, being theory that involves the ether) The electron in a free state absorb’s ether from the environment, restoring it’s electromagnetic mass to a stable state. Converting ether energy into thermal photon energy. (the ether is a concept Tesla championed , Einstein however did not add to his equations)
    The process of electron capture by free protons is said to be the source of neutron radiation during plasma electrolysis.
    The electrons absorb the photons which are in turn absorbed by the protons to become a neutron, the left over mass from the equation is energy dissolved into the ether..
    As hydrogen plasma is generated during the plasma electrolytic process of water electrolysis, there exists a tendency of the capture of the free electrons by them. This would explain the hyrdogen production which is in excess of Farady’s Law.
    I will start with the Iron electrode. During the transmutation of the iron nuclei, the atomic nuclei of chromium and the atomic nuclei of copper are (this next bit is cut and paste as this is theory that I think can explain it, way better than I could, sry if this isn’t quite what you expect. But I have read through this numerous times and it sounds to me like a good explanation of what is happening in the plasma state).
    When the atomic nucleus of iron pass into the atomic nucleus of chromium , two protons and two neutrons are released; two atoms of deuterium or one atom of helium can be formed from them. If the neutrons pass into the protons, four atoms of hydrogen are formed.
    It is easy to see that the atomic nucleus of iron should lose two upper protons and two neutrons in order to pass into the atomic nucleus of chromium .
    Three additional protons and six neutrons (total 9 nucleons) are required for the formation of the atomic nucleus of copper from the atomic nucleus of iron. As there are chromium atoms, which, as we think, are formed from the atomic nuclei of iron, on the cathode surface 4fold than the atoms of copper, the solution is sure to have superfluous protons and neutrons of the destroyed atomic nuclei of iron, and we can determined their approximate relative quantity.
    Let us suppose that four nuclei of the iron atoms pass into the nuclei of the chromium atom. The total quantity of free protons and neutrons (nucleons) is equal to 16. As one atom of copper falls on each four atoms of chromium, 9 nucleons are spent for the formation of one nucleus of the copper atom, and 7 nucleons remain free.
    The cataylst K (potassium) When the transmutation of the nuclei of the potassium atoms takes place, the nuclei of the oxygen atoms can be formed as well as its isotopes and the nuclei of the silicon atoms.
    It is easy to count that during the destruction of one nucleus of the potassium atom and the creation of one nucleus of the silicon atom 5 free protons and 6 free neutrons, i.e. 11 nucleons, are formed.
    Thus, the transmutation of the nuclei of the iron atoms and the potassium atoms results in the formation of free protons and neutrons. As the protons cannot exist in free state, the hydrogen atoms are created from them. If the protons are connected with the neutrons after the destruction of the nuclei of the iron atoms and the potassium atoms, the formation of deuterium, tritium and helium is possible.
    So that is the science theory in an explanation of what is happening with this plasma event. So far in my research there are many different combinations of electrodes. This event was with Iron electrodes, Rossi uses a Nickel electrode, Brillouin (who have just been granted a patent in China) use Nickel but are experimenting with Titanium and Tungsten. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons used nickel and gold electrodes in a mixture of palladium chloride and deutrium. At the university of Utah. Some of JNL labs replication involve Paladium electrodes. The Hokkaido experiments involve differing electrodes and cataylst solutions as well. In short there is a lot of work being done with this. Going big we see the gasification of rubish producing electricity as well as useful chermical by products. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6xyRx_98Rc
    My question to the community is where do we go to study this ? This is something I would like to pursue. As well as magnetic gates have seen some Howard Johnson field mapping that makes me want to study the science of magnetism and electricity and radiant(cold) electricity.

  • you are taking the piss now aren’t you?

    Ether. ffs…

    You need to shift to Theology. Science is not your forte.

  • “My question to the community is where do we go to study this ?”

    Frankly I think this has been answered. One does not simply jump directly to nuclear engineering before learning the underpinning first principles.

    But as you are reluctant to do the required due diligence in this area I can suggest no course of action for you that you will like.

    As for your explanation of the physics of plasma electrolysis, it’s fanciful inclusion of the previously discarded notion of the aether in order to solve the energy problems is, uh, interesting. Perhaps Ashton has more to say on this?

  • Its a shame that both Darcy and I have identified the same shortcoming in your writeup Derek. In my case its because, frankly, I was lazily shooting fish in a barrel. I could have chosen any section between “Here is the link…” and “…useful chemical by products.” with the same outcome.

    The answer to your final paragraph is, fairly and reasonably, go and get a secondary school level understanding of the currently known chemistry and physics. Follow this up with an appropriate tertiary level degree course in both. Then a masters and preferably a doctorate in the same. By then you should have a good grasp on basic scientific techniques and methodology in both theoretical and practical settings, and you will be in a position to push forward into new frontiers.

    Not before.

  • Funny you should say that, the ether. Nicola Tesla was a champion of the ether, look at what he accomplished. What of this dark energy. So there is no energy pervading through space ? So space is a void ? I know this does not sit well with relativity . The expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating.Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. It is called dark energy. Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy. I am sorry this sounds a lot like ether to me. Maybe you can explain the difference to me Ashton as I don’t know for sure.
    I don’t know how to explain this and am using theory from others. The plasma state from what I understand is still not fully understood.
    I don’t want to waste your time but I am not so concerned with what is happening at the atomic level and what transmutations are taking place, my main concern is what is happening in the reactor in regards to excess heat and hydrogen production these are the things I wish to study. Hands on, that is what I wish to study and Radiant electricity. Is it possible in our education system ?

  • Derek, Dark Energy =/= Aether.

    A quick summary of the difference might go as follows:
    The aether was a hypothetical fluid filling space that would allow the propagation of electromagnetic waves. It was simply a substance that would be the thing that “waved”, analogous to ripples on water.

    Dark energy is frankly a complete mystery as far as I can understand, it could be a space filling energy of some kind that facilitates the accelerated expansion, it could also be a number of other things – a consequence of gravity over very large distances say. I don’t know with what confidence we can narrow down these possibilities or even if the correct answer is even within our range of alternatives at this time.

    To speculate that dark energy has just the precisely the properties to facilitate these miraculous conversions between atomic species as well as fill the role of the aether seems premature in the extreme.

    Also I’m not sure you are correct in asserting that “The plasma state from what I understand is still not fully understood.” I’m pretty sure it’s understood well enough to exclude the properties you attribute to it.

    As Ashton says, the way to push the boundaries in science is to study the basics and move forward from there. Without such foundations you are at best foundering in the dark, and at worst fooling yourself.

  • Yawnies.

    An as-yet unexplained component in the universal equation does not mean the only alternative is “aether” (ether is the liquid used to stupify surgical subjects, comely women and bank managers…). This is regardless of whether you think Tesla a genius or delusional fraud.

    If you are not concerned with the atomic level, why are you focusing on an area that requires that concern?

    You are in no position to study the area “hands – on” since you have no grasp on the basic scientific building blocks required. This is similar to me claiming a desire to transform our understanding of Scandinavian mythology without the pesky noodling with Old Norse verbs and prepositions.

    The key part of your last post you need to grapple with is your line “I don’t know how to explain this and am using theory from others.”

    Until you CAN explain lucidly what is going on you are in no position to do anything. You are not “using” theory from others – you are reciting it (some would say regurgitating with all the messiness and lack of self control that the term implies).

    Like I said – try theology. Its more in line with your thinking approach. This is not given as abuse, but as a reality check.

  • So what science is plasma electrolysis then? How would you explain what is going on ? You are the expert not me, I only have 7th form physics and chemistry I am trying my best as an amateur to explain this. I see it replicated so many times it has me questioning what Junk science is. You say some people call Tesla a delusional Fraud, its funny some people say that about the patent clerk who invented a refrigerator and a theory with so many holes, that when they found out the universe wasn’t static like his prediction, along came dark energy. Tesla invented the induction motor and the resonant transformer, yawn.. used in radio, the first particle accelerator, cathode ray tubes…..
    What first made me question politically correct science was my practical discovery of radiant electricity and finding nothing in science to explain it. So I had to go to people that tried to offer an explanation. Then I found the ECat which is said to be fraud but suddenly I found plasma electrolysis with excess heat. So far I have had no explanation of this from any scientist only mocking which hasn’t been very helpful. So summing up denial of radiant energy , denial of ether and denial of plasma electrolysis (certainly no explanation) seems to be what you mainstream scientists interests you. So I am none the wiser despite trying to talk about this, except for things I have learnt from “junk science” which at least acknowledge this and try to explain. Well if Junk science is religion then I might study it, at least the very real phenomenon of cold electricity is explained. and plasma electrolysis.Science has no explanation of an energy that might exist in roughly 3/4 of the universe and have no idea how it reacts with its environment. Well that is pretty dumb.

  • “So what science is plasma electrolysis then?”

    As far as I can tell, it’s not science. The only reference to I can find is the crank sites you refer to. I have yet to see that there is anything credible to explain.

    “a theory with so many holes”,
    Care to mention a few? With so many it should be easy right? Funny mostly the stories I see are “Einstein was right again” got any credible sources that show significant holes?

    You are essentially arguing that Tesla was never wrong about anything. If not a single idea of his you are willing to doubt.

    “So I am none the wiser despite trying to talk about this”

    It seems to me you are none the wise because you refuse to listen to advice. I started out in a helpful frame of mind but as you continually showed you were uninterested in reasonable discussion in favour of unsubstantiated conspiracy-mongering and science bashing I gave up.

    “Science has no explanation of an energy that might exist in roughly 3/4 of the universe and have no idea how it reacts with its environment. Well that is pretty dumb.”

    Yes how stupid of us to admit ignorance rather than latch prematurely to an explanation and cling to it despite no evidence.

    Well, you really showed us.

  • I am not here to argue I just want to know about these multiple plasma electrolysis experiments and what is going on. No one seems to know, well if it is not science then something unexplainable is happening what is this ??? Maybe it is sociology ?
    Certainly a bit of drama, wouldn’t call it comedy (unless you happen to be listening to a novice try to explain it)
    Radiant energy not science either just some mysterious form of natural electricity that has been proved to exist, but is irrelevant in times of energy warfare. wtf ..?!!
    So I take it these are not excepted by mainstream why not ?

  • “So I take it these are not excepted by mainstream why not ?”

    Darcy and Ashton independently both gave you one reason – ‘the aether’ is a notion that is redundant in modern physics (and has been for a very long time).

  • “So I take it these are not excepted by mainstream why not ?”

    That is actually a good question, we’ve tried to help you with that but if you can answer it on your own then you’ll be most of the way there.

  • well from my investigations this is real phenomenon. I know for a fact radiant energy is real I have experimentally found this. Plasma electrolysis by Nasa, Spawar … to many people have verified this. My opinion is yes this is science, this is what will interest the young people. This is what interests me. You say conspiracy, you have just verified this for me, with absolute lack of interest. Anyone with half a brain can research this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0
    not real these people disagree
    Principal Researcher Affiliation Country
    Aoki, T. U. Tsukuba Japan
    Arata, Y. Arata Hall, Osaka U. Japan
    Babu, K.S.C. Banaras U. India
    Battaglia, A. CISE spa (Piantelli et al.) Italy
    Belzner, A. Stanford U. (Huggins et al.) USA
    Bertalot, L. Associazione EURATOM-ENEA Italy
    Birgul, O. Hacezepe U. Turkey
    Brudanin, V.B. Joint Inst. For Nuclear Res. Russia
    Bush, B.F. U. Texas USA
    Bush, R.T. California State Polytechnic U. USA
    Celani, F. INFN Frascati Italy
    Dash, J. Portland State U. USA
    Dufour, J. CNAM – Laboratoire des sciences nucléaires France
    Fleischmann, M. U. Utah USA
    Focardi, S. U. Bologna (Piantelli et al.) Italy
    Gozzi, D. U. di Roma La Sapienza Italy
    Isagawa, S. High Energy Accelerator Res. Org. (KEK) Japan
    Isobe, Y. Osaka U., Nuclear Eng. Dept. (Takahashi et al.) Japan
    Iwamura, Y. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Japan
    Iyengar, P.K. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre India
    Kainthla, R.C. Texas A&M U. (Bockris et al.) USA
    Kamada, K. National Institute for Fusion Science Japan
    Karabut, A.B. Scientific Industrial Association “Lutch” Russia
    Kunimatsu, K. IMRA Japan Japan
    Lewis, D. Studsvik Energiteknik AB Sweden
    Li, X.Z. Tsinghua U. China
    Liaw, B.Y. U. Hawaii USA
    Lin, G.H. Texas A&M U. (Bockris et al.) USA
    Lipson, A.G. Ins. Physical Chem., Russian Acad. Of Sciences Russia
    Lyakhov, B.F. Ins. Physical Chem., Russian Acad. Of Sciences Russia
    Mathews, C.K. Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research India
    McKubre, M.C.H. SRI, Inc. USA
    Mengoli, G. CNR IPELP, Padova Italy
    Miao, B. J. Northwest Normal U. China
    Miles, M. Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake USA
    Miley, G.H. U. Illinois USA
    Mills, R.L. BlackLight Power, Inc. USA
    Mizuno, T. Hokkaido U., Engineering Dept. Japan
    Mosier-Boss, P. SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego (Szpak et al.) USA
    Nakamura, K. Kinki U., Atomic Energy Res. Institute Japan
    Noninski, V. Lab. Electroch. (LEPGER) Bulgaria
    Notoya, R. Hokkaido U., Catalysis Res. Center Japan
    Numata, H. Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan
    Ohmori, T. Hokkaido U., Catalysis Res. Center Japan
    Okamoto, M. Tokyo Institute of Technology, Res. Lab. Nuclear Reactors Japan
    Oriani, R.A. U. Minnesota USA
    Ota, K. Yokohama Nat. University Japan
    Oyama, N. Tokyo U. Of Agriculture & Technology Japan
    Pons, S. IMRA France France
    Preparata, G. U. Milano Italy
    Santhanam, K.S.V. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research India
    Savvatimova, I. Scientific Industrial Association “Lutch” Russia
    Scott, C.D. Oak Ridge National Laboratory USA
    Shirai, O. Kyoto U. Japan
    Srinivasan, M. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre India
    Storms, E. Los Alamos National Laboratory USA
    Swartz, M.R. JET Energy Technology, Inc. USA
    Szpak, S. SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego (Szpak et al.) USA
    Takahashi, A. Osaka U., Nuclear Eng. Dept. (Takahashi et al.) Japan
    Velev, O. Texas A&M U. (Bockris et al.) USA
    Yun, K.S. Korea Institute of Science and Technology Korea
    Zhang, Q. Sichuan Union University China

    wow these scientists think its science

  • . Peer-reviewed excess heat papers, from both databases
    1. Agelao, G. and M.C. Romano, Heat and helium production during exothermic reactions
    between gases through palladium geometrical elements loaded with hydrogen. Fusion
    Technol., 2000. 38: p. 224.
    2. Aoki, T., et al., Search for nuclear products of the D + D nuclear fusion. Int. J. Soc. Mat.
    Eng. Resources, 1998. 6(1): p. 22.
    3. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of intense ‘cold fusion’ reaction. Kaku Yugo
    Kenkyu, 1989. 62: p. 398 (In Japanese).
    4. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of an intense cold fusion reaction. Fusion
    Technol., 1990. 18: p. 95.
    5. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of intense ‘cold’ fusion reaction. Proc. Jpn. Acad.,
    Ser. B, 1990. 66: p. 1.
    6. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Corroborating evidence for ‘cold’ fusion reaction. Proc. Jpn.
    Acad., Ser. B, 1990. 66(B): p. 110.
    7. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, ‘Cold’ fusion caused by a weak ‘on-off effect’. Proc. Jpn. Acad.,
    Ser. B, 1992. 66: p. 33.
    8. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, ‘Cold’ fusion in deuterated complex cathode. Kaku Yugo
    Kenkyu, 1992. 67((5)): p. 432 (in Japanese).
    9. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Reproducible “Cold” Fusion Reaction Using A Complex
    Cathode. Fusion Technol., 1992. 22: p. 287.
    10. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Excess heat in a double structure deuterated cathode. Kaku
    Yugo Kenkyu, 1993. 69((8)): p. 963 (in Japanese).
    11. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, A new energy caused by “Spillover-deuterium”. Proc. Jpn.
    Acad., Ser. B, 1994. 70 ser. B: p. 106.
    12. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, A new energy generated in DS-cathode with ‘Pd-black’. Koon
    Gakkaishi, 1994. 20(4): p. 148 (in Japanese).
    13. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of solid-state plasma fusion (“cold fusion”).
    Koon Gakkaishi, 1995. 21((6)): p. 303 (in Japanese).
    14. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Deuterium nuclear reaction process within solid. Proc. Jpn.
    Acad., Ser. B, 1996. 72 Ser. B: p. 179.
    15. Arata, Y. and C. Zhang, Presence of helium (4/2He, 3/2He) confirmed in highly
    deuterated Pd-black by the new detecting methodology. J. High Temp. Soc., 1997. 23: p.
    110 (in Japanese).
    16. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Solid-state plasma fusion (‘cold fusion’). J. High Temp. Soc.,
    1997. 23 (special volume): p. 1-56.
    17. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Observation of Anomalous Heat Release and Helium-4
    Production from Highly Deuterated Fine Particles. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 2, 1999. 38: p.
    L774.
    18. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Formation of Condensed Metallic Deuterium Lattice and
    Nuclear Fusion. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B, 2002. 78(Ser. B): p. 57.
    19. Arata, Y. and Y. Zhang, The Establishment of Solid Nuclear Fusion Reactor. J. High
    Temp. Soc., 2008. 34(2): p. 85.
    20. Babu, K.S.C., et al., On the formation of palladium deuteride and its relationship to
    suspected cold fusion. Adv. Hydrogen Energy, 1990. 8 Hydrogen Energy Prog. VIII,
    Vol. 2),: p. 1051.
    21. Battaglia, A., et al., Neutron emission in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A,
    1999. 112 A: p. 921.
    22. Belzner, A., et al., Two fast mixed-conductor systems: deuterium and hydrogen in
    palladium – thermal measurements and experimental considerations. J. Fusion Energy,
    1990. 9(2): p. 219.
    23. Belzner, A., et al., Recent results on mixed conductors containing hydrogen or deuterium.
    Solid State Ionics, 1990. 40/41: p. 519.
    24. Bertalot, L., et al., Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the electrolysis of heavy
    water: heat excess production. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1993. 15 D: p. 1435.
    25. Birgul, O., et al., Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium using surface modified
    palladium electrodes. J. Eng. Env. Sci., 1990. 14(3): p. 373.
    26. Brudanin, V.B., et al., Search for the cold fusion d(d,(4)He) in electrolysis of D2O. Phys.
    Lett. A, 1990. 151(9): p. 543.
    27. Bush, B.F., et al., Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion
    experiments. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 304: p. 271.
    28. Bush, R.T., A light water excess heat reaction suggests that ‘cold fusion’ may be ‘alkalihydrogen fusion’. Fusion Technol., 1992. 22: p. 301.
    29. Bush, R.T. and R.D. Eagleton, Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and
    Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells with Light Water
    Rubidium Salt Electrolytes. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 334.
    30. Celani, F., et al., Deuterium overloading of palladium wires by means of high power
    microsecond pulsed electrolysis and electromigration: suggestions of a “phase
    transition” and related excess heat. Phys. Lett. A, 1996. 214: p. 1.
    31. Celani, F., et al., Reproducible D/Pd ratio > 1 and excess heat correlation by 1-microsecpulse, high-current electrolysis. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 398.
    32. Dash, J., G. Noble, and D. Diman, Surface Morphology and Microcomposition of
    Palladium Cathodes After Electrolysis in Acified Light and Heavy Water: Correlation
    With Excess Heat. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 299.
    33. Dufour, J., Cold fusion by sparking in hydrogen isotopes. Fusion Technol., 1993. 24: p.
    205.
    34. Dufour, J., et al., Interaction of palladium/hydrogen and palladium/deuterium to measure
    the excess energy per atom for each isotope. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 198.
    35. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of
    deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263.
    36. Fleischmann, M., et al., Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system. J.
    Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 287: p. 293.

    have another page of this but thought I would stop as I think you get the picture. Peer reviewed articles involving plasma electrolysis, LENR
    Just proved you wrong it is science..

  • its science Jim, but not as we know it.

    Derek, I have the same level of science education as you – with the forlorn additional failing that mine occurred over 30 years ago.

    What I asked you for was not a terribly difficult thing. All you had to do was identify the substances involved in the reaction that so fascinates you, identify the energy transactions during the reaction, and identify the resulting substances.

    In that order.

    The fact that you cannot do this (or have for some reason chosen not to) demonstrates that you lack the thinking processes required (not desirable, REQUIRED) for logical analysis of any form. This is not saying you are stupid. This is saying you don’t think like a scientist (or any other technician come to that).

    In this and other threads, you make the Mulder diagnosis (witty X-Files reference…). You really should be asking yourself is there any logical reason we haven’t found this truth given the huge advances in other spheres.

    For instance, do you really think the team that built the particle collider under the Swiss Alps and then used it to find all new sub-atomic particles (which, by the way, had all been postulated by real scientists) are incapable of figuring out if Tesla was on to something?

    Your pursuit is best described as Quixotic. These are not advancing legions of knights you are battling with, its windmills…

    I’m out of this thread. Its becoming a trollfest. Good luck with your search Derek, hopefully it will lead you to something both true and real.

  • Haha I wasn’t going to reply to this but saw your last post Ahston so…
    It is funny how you want me to explain a reaction which today people are having trouble trying to understand. Despite your fairy tales and x files you can see from above the work that has gone into this reaction and confirmations of excess heat.
    I am no nuclear physicist and I am trying to understand this myself. However anyone who is not an ostrich can see this is real, by all the peer reviewed articles done.
    Cold fusion is real…