Puzzling thing is that it seems to work better under load.
I'd say it was impossible to figure out how "well" the machine was running, from the video. That's why you always need a decent independent dyno test - so that the inputs and outputs can be properly mapped.
more efficient under load
That's just waffle. All IC engines are "more efficient under load" - as losses don't increase in proportion to power.
Well, we should be worried the day when he won't have nothing to declare 
With regard to why it may be more efficient under load, Bob Greenyer has the following to say:
I think is a good way to see it. There are a miriad of aspects to fine tune, but in the bottom line, this is interesting for the quest of Net Zero.
This design, like GEET, could increase the recycle of entropy and therefore increase thermal output. When a reaction occurs, the energy is distributed between heat and entropy. Recycling entropy could therefore increase heat output. To recycle entropy the input side of heat exchanger needs liquid water not vapor to be most effective. Also see "cavitation-sonofusion-reactor-from-b-j-huang-et-al" in this forum which could also exploit entropy recycle via a heat exchanger.
Jordon gives an update.
Bob looking deeper.
After test discussion.
Randal Carlson says be skeptical but also open minded.
These are other results released some weeks ago. This level of CO2 and CO emission reduction is not independently verified, but this is for showing the claims that is being made and that has been at least partially verified by third parties.
If I understand the chart correctly, then the combination of the bubbler and the plasmoid generator radically reduces the carbon in the exhaust and radically increase the oxygen in the exhaust. Also note that if the oxygen is calibrated correctly that it should indicate the atmospheric gas has 20.95% oxygen. Even with the bubbler and plasmoid generator, the chart indicates the exhaust gas has less than atmospheric levels of oxygen. The products of combustion are oxides (water and oxides of carbon), which products consume roughly equal amounts of oxygen. The base level indicates that combustion should produce about 14% carbon dioxide. With the bubbler and the plasmoid generator the oxygen in the exhaust is about 19%. That would be all of the oxygen from the carbon dioxide and some of oxygen from water produced by combustion.
Did anyone check to see if the exhaust gas had enough hydrogen to burn?
Did anyone check to see if the exhaust gas had enough hydrogen to burn?
Not AFAIK, but I guess it is assumed that if any Hydrogen is available is totally ignited in the combustion chamber.
Of course there is less carbon in the exhaust. That's just because the engine is burning less petrol in relation to the volume of exhaust. That's exactly what will happen if you squirt air and electrolysed water (hydrogen and oxygen) into the inlet manifold - which will also affect the carburettor, by messing up the manifold depression.
How much power is taken by the electrolyser?
I had a Skype chat with Bob Greenyer about this last night. He tells me that the company are setting up a new series of tests in multiple locations which will be designed to remove uncertainties by properly measuring emissions and accounting for energy use by all the ancilliary equipment. .
He tells me that the company are setting up a new series of tests in multiple locations which will be designed to remove uncertainties by properly measuring emissions and accounting for energy use by all the ancilliary equipment.
That is certainly an improvement.
As I mentioned further up this thread, this is really a Meyer/Joe device - which (for historical reasons) would not get through any patent application process on it's own anyway. The "bubbler and thunderball" device is there to draw attention away from the electrolyser.
However, as far as I'm concerned, it seems there were anomalies around the Stan Meyer device - when operating in the lab - that were never fully addressed when the unusual USPO investigation concluded it was simple electrolysis (rendering it unpatentable). Stan himself never fully understood why his device sometimes appeared to create more gas than it should, for the electrical power supplied, and sometimes didn't. Publicly he tried to mask this lack of understanding with a mix of technobabble and religion. As far as I'm aware, his infamous "beach buggy" never performed as intended, either.
Nevertheless, variants of the "anomalous electrolyser" have never gone away. Some people might say that is just evidence for it being a perpetually recurring scam. But it could also be evidence that something more peculiar is going on.
The "bubbler and thunderball" device is there to draw attention away from the electrolyser.
AFAIK, this device has not an electrolyzer, at least not a purposefully installed one, and “au contraire” of the GEET, the bubbler is in the way of the air intake and not in the way of the exhaust recirculation (where in the
GEET there is some water thermolysis due to heat and friction). The only power drain here is the lightbulb in the air intake and the extra lenght of pipes to draw air in and recircle the exhaust.
AFAIK, this device has not an electrolyzer
The misdirection has worked.
Only I doubt there is any H2 & O2 separation going on. It is probably a mix going in to the bubbler, and also directly to the engine. They are just lucky that nobody has been killed or injured by a hydrogen explosion.
Display MoreThe misdirection has worked.
Only I doubt there is any H2 & O2 separation going on. It is probably all going in to the bubbler. They are just lucky that nobody has been killed or injured by a hydrogen explosion.
The only thing drawing power is the UV lightbulb with a low watt power (less than 10 W), do you claim that there’s a hidden pulsating circuit? or that the UV lightbulb is doing electrolysis somehow? It indeed does create some ionozation, but of the air going into the bubbler.
do you claim that there’s a hidden pulsating circuit?
I don't "claim" anything. It is clearly shown in their own document.
(I linked to this document further up the thread)
QuoteNested stainless steel cylinders creating a resonant octave 16 part chord
The above phrase reminds me of this...
Looking at that makes me feel slightly nauseous, this being particularly hard to swallow. "The Thunderstorm generator facilitates an atomic restructuring action that increases the size of the plasmoids by adding electrons and protons to them. The plasmoids harvest the electrons and protons from the protium (H) contained within the water as a result of disassembly caused by the forces applied by the plasmoids. The energy harvested from the electron enhanced plasmoids significantly increases the engines energy output, efficiency and thereby reduces the toxicity of the exhaust."
Display MoreI don't "claim" anything. It is clearly shown in their own document.
https://static1.squarespace.co…LASMOID+PROTIUM+POWER.pdf
(I linked to this document further up the thread)
The above phrase reminds me of this...
Well, this gives you all the reason to be angry, but I was talking about the unit built and demonstrated in the Zurich event. That one has no electrolysis unit built in whatsoever.
Looking at that makes me feel slightly nauseous, this being particularly hard to swallow. "The Thunderstorm generator facilitates an atomic restructuring action that increases the size of the plasmoids by adding electrons and protons to them. The plasmoids harvest the electrons and protons from the protium (H) contained within the water as a result of disassembly caused by the forces applied by the plasmoids. The energy harvested from the electron enhanced plasmoids significantly increases the engines energy output, efficiency and thereby reduces the toxicity of the exhaust."
Many of us agree, and I also agree, that the theoretical explanations given by the ones driving this effort are nonsensical at best, total bunkum at worst. That’s in part why Bob Greenyer has chosen to take a completely independent stance and provide his own views on how to explain the observed behavior. He is more interested in 1st confirming it does what is claimed to do (so far, it seems it does, at least partially), 2nd providing a plausible hypothesis on why it works, and the potential health hazzards, and 3rd, ensuring it can be used safely by anyone interested by means of open sourcing all their findings.
Looking at that makes me feel slightly nauseous, this being particularly hard to swallow. "The Thunderstorm generator facilitates an atomic restructuring action that increases the size of the plasmoids by adding electrons and protons to them. The plasmoids harvest the electrons and protons from the protium (H) contained within the water as a result of disassembly caused by the forces applied by the plasmoids. The energy harvested from the electron enhanced plasmoids significantly increases the engines energy output, efficiency and thereby reduces the toxicity of the exhaust."
People say the same thing when you try to explain cold fusion
