Electrolysis

1st Official Post
    • Official Post

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    These guys have been spoon feeding info on YouTube for years. Looks like plain hydrolysis but at one moment they say 35kw of thermal power and then at some point it shows 5kw current draw.

    There is also claim about '5kw power on demand'

    It is not the first time I came across similar apparatus. The inventors claim the found super effiicent way to break water.

    • Official Post
    Quote from bocijn

    Power input = 4.3472 kW very accurate

    Power output = ?????????. I am sure they have measured it

    COP =???

    From the video it is not clear. They show different test setups. At some point the claim is 35kw thermal. For the record, they don't make any overunity claims. But, in the past, they were saying that they are working on cheap clean energy.

    • Official Post

    Similar tech this time from Russia

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    In short 3-4kw electric is enough to heat 150-200 sq m house.

    They use a combination of waves it the reactor leading to very efficient process. This guys are past r&d stage. One of the videos from thirteen channel has tour around manufacturing facility

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Hmmm... my view is that anyone who claims free energy, magnetic motors, power from noble gas and violations of various law of conservation of energy and matter in chemical reactions is a quack or a crook until carefully and repeatedly proven otherwise. And by the way, I have yet to be wrong with that approach. On the other hand, your trust approach gives us Steorn's and Dennis Lees and Bedini's and of course Defkalions and Rossis.


    Not to mention that science and technology is not based on trust. It's based on understanding, clarity, reproducibility, and relying on work already done, for example the known laws of nature and the methods of mathematics.


    Max, what's the problem with telling these folks, "Many have tried and so far all have failed. Can you prove the claims you make?"

    • Official Post
    Quote from maryyugo

    "Many have tried and so far all have failed. Can you prove the claims you make?"

    Nobody owes one anything. It is up to one to prove or disprove.

    Again, nothing has been surely proven yet. Did you see both twins from twins paradox?

    It boils down to what majority believes at the moment similar to how it was believed the Earth is flat no so long ago.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Max Nozin

    Because everything is based on trust in the first place. Seeing a scammer in everyone first is counter productive.


    Very true! A book to read , by my Paranoid in Chief Hero:

    https://www.schneier.com/books/liars_and_outliers/

    Quote

    We don't demand a background check on the plumber who shows up to fix the leaky sink. We don't do a chemical analysis on food we eat.

    Trust and cooperation are the first problems we had to solve before we could become a social species. In the 21st century, they have become the most important problems we need to solve—again. Our global society has become so large and complex that our traditional trust mechanisms no longer work.

    Quote

    We don't demand a background check on the plumber who shows up to fix the leaky sink. We don't do a chemical analysis on food we eat.

    First, that's not exactly true. Most people nowadays check their plumber with Angie's list, Yelp or friends. I don't allow someone into my home who "just shows up." As for the food we eat, it is regulated and checked with sampling by government agencies. Third world countries don't have this regulation with predictable results (contamination, poisoning and rotten food). So the assertion to start with is plain nonsense and bad thinking.


    Secondly, choosing a plumber and food are everyday routine phenomena. LENR, if true, overcomes Coulomb repulsion forces. That's hardly ordinary. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Sagin famously said, but which probably originated with David Hume in 1748 or before (see wiki). So double nonsense. Trusting people about LENR results in Rossi and Defkalion.

    Sure, Max. I won't trust feedback from a reliable and screened web source but I will trust every flaming nut case with an energy scam on the internet. Good advice, Max. If you apply such wisdom to every day existence, you must have a very exciting life, albeit not the kind of excitement I would prefer.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.