Re: [Keelynet] Burning water - Biosfuel
Hola Stuart et al! First of all, thanks Stuart, for the headsup on this! Could this be producing Rhodes gas (Brown stole it from Dr. Rhodes) as at; http://www.keelynet.com/energy/oxyhyd1.htm The differecne according to PACE in Canada; http://www.keelynet.com/energy/oxyhyd3.htm Stuart Rae wrote: Hi Jerry, ..snip... Which is why I note with interest that a new "water based fuel" invention has appeared on the block at: http://www.biosmeanslife.com/index.html In brief, the inventor is shown pouring a small quantity (about two or three hundred ml) of ordinary tap water into a container about the size of a standard car battery. There appeared to be two wires coming from two opposite faces of the container. The container's other faces were about half an inch thick, with some circular objects at their tops, and they were orange in colour. They also clearly have the words "HDD Cooler" printed on the edges (number 8 wire?). The interviewer confirmed that the device did not contain batteries and it was not plugged into a power source of any sort. No power source??? So its chemical or some 'flavoring' by an alloy or combination thereof? The inventor then connected the two wires together and it was left untouched for something like forty minutes. While the interviewer was allowed to observe the process in the container, the inventor did not permit it to be filmed.. The water was then poured out of the container into a glass beaker, and a sample of it given to the interviewer for analysis. The rest was poured into a small tank (about the size of a small thermos) mounted on a motor bike, where the petrol tank would normally be. The original tank had been removed, making the entire top engine structure and the fueling procedure clear . Did it show the production of bubbles or could you see inside the container of water? The bike was then started and filmed being ridden up to 50 mph on the highway, and at lesser speed around a commercial courtyard. According to the inventor, the carburettor had been only slightly modified. ...snip... (1) He will make so much money from this invention that he will make Bill Gates look like a poor relation. Uh-oh, not good if money is his only motive. (2)That by applying for a patent (which is expensive, and takes about a year) the confidentiality of his invention will somehow be assured. And that with the granting of a patent his intellectual property will be protected. Someone should tell him about all the paid spies in the patent office? As well about modifications of his design, use of newer materials or techniques that make for a new patent and companies who would forge ahead with copies realizing he doesn't have the money to sue them for infringement. Many negative points about patents in my opinion. Ask Don Lancaster! (3) That the demonstration of his invention publicly, on television, will somehow assure his personal protection against harm from any commercial or other interest who may feel threatened by it. (Alternatively, he has gone public in the mistaken hope that some large commercial interest with a very big cheque book will buy him out!) Risking threats to him and his family or an actual sale where the technology is locked away at the sole discretion of the buyer. Tilleys idea to obviate that is to include a clause in the contract REQUIRING the buyer to have the product on the market within a reasonable time (2-5 years depending on complexity, etc.) or the technology reverts BACK to the seller who keeps any money paid. Those of us who have been around for a while know where all these roads lead. There is enough smoke that it makes sense to CYA (cover your ass) from the gitgo (unfront) as much as you can. It always boggle my mind to read of all the claimed inventions and discoveries which never make it to market. This might be another one of them. About the connection to Rhodes gas...years ago, Brown was all over the Aussie news for driving a water fueled car all over Australia when separated, the gases combusted and then which imploded to reform water. Regards, SR This e-mail has been transmitted using 100% recycled electrons -- Jerry Decker - http://www.keelynet.com Donations to support KeelyNet: http://www.keelynet.com/donate1.htm Public Archive http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet Order out of Chaos - From an Art to a Science
[Keelynet] Burning water - Biosfuel
Hi Jerry, I have long wondered why so many alternate fuel researchers seem fixated with the idea that electrolysis (in one form or another) is the only method of disassociating water into its component gases. Under the right conditions water itself can be made to burn (i.e.without using the energy input required for electrolysis). And in its subsequent recombination into water, it produces a heat and light of such intensity, that it can sublimate fire brick. Which is why I note with interest that a new "water based fuel" invention has appeared on the block at: http://www.biosmeanslife.com/index.html The site itself provides very little useful technical information, but it does refer to an October 13th "60 Minutes " television documentary, shown recently in New Zealand. The documentary is considerably more informative. In it, the inventor frequently emphasizes that his invention is " . . . a water based fuel " (rather than the conventional electrolysis inferred on the web site). He also talks of the "entrainment" of hydrogen in the water. In brief, the inventor is shown pouring a small quantity (about two or three hundred ml) of ordinary tap water into a container about the size of a standard car battery. There appeared to be two wires coming from two opposite faces of the container. The container's other faces were about half an inch thick, with some circular objects at their tops, and they were orange in colour. They also clearly have the words "HDD Cooler" printed on the edges (number 8 wire?). The interviewer confirmed that the device did not contain batteries and it was not plugged into a power source of any sort. The inventor then connected the two wires together and it was left untouched for something like forty minutes. While the interviewer was allowed to observe the process in the container, the inventor did not permit it to be filmed.. The water was then poured out of the container into a glass beaker, and a sample of it given to the interviewer for analysis. The rest was poured into a small tank (about the size of a small thermos) mounted on a motor bike, where the petrol tank would normally be. The original tank had been removed, making the entire top engine structure and the fueling procedure clear . The bike was then started and filmed being ridden up to 50 mph on the highway, and at lesser speed around a commercial courtyard. According to the inventor, the carburettor had been only slightly modified. Water will burn under the right conditions, and with the right "catalyst". This invention may or may not use similar techniques. Or it may be a new method of conditioning water that somehow "entrains" additional hydrogen ? But unfortunately, and like so many others before him, the inventor seems to have made a number of naive and seriously flawed assumptions. He seems to believe: (1)He will make so much money from this invention that he will make Bill Gates look like a poor relation. (2)That by applying for a patent (which is expensive, and takes about a year) the confidentiality of his invention will somehow be assured. And that with the granting of a patent his intellectual property will be protected. (3) That the demonstration of his invention publicly, on television, will somehow assure his personal protection against harm from any commercial or other interest who may feel threatened by it. (Alternatively, he has gone public in the mistaken hope that some large commercial interest with a very big cheque book will buy him out !) Those of us who have been around for a while know where all these roads lead. Regards, SR This e-mail has been transmitted using 100% recycled electrons
