Water as fuel?

[H2OPWR]

If all you guys focused all this energy on HHO we would be at Unity now. PLEASE. This is HHO FORUMS.COM. Some of us are trying to make improvements on an ineffecient technology. Please focus all your efforts to help! PLEASE

[jriggs_18]

"P.S. OU implies that there is no using up of any material."

Couldnt overunity be like this as well...put in a canadian dollar and get an american dollar back

lets just you could convert a gallon of gas to diesel without using an energy. would that not be an example of overunity? youre changing what you had in the beginning and coming away with more energy, even though you cant turn around and do it all again without getting more gas?

I still see your analogy as being ou, but im just thinking there could be other occurrences that would count as ou.

"If all you guys focused all this energy on HHO we would be at Unity now. PLEASE. This is HHO FORUMS.COM. Some of us are trying to make improvements on an ineffecient technology. Please focus all your efforts to help! PLEASE"

This thread may not have answered any questions on how to faciliate production of HHO for the commonfolk but IMO that doesnt mean it hasnt been productive. This thread may be about theory and things that dont exist as of now, just because its different than alot of other threads doesnt mean its worthless, in fact it has raised many questions in my mind as to where I stand with OU and why. I still maintain my belief that it is achievable and sure this discussion might be better suited for OUpower.com (wait, i forgot to mention that one on my group list didnt i) but whats the harm in hosting the discussion here as it still pertains to the possible use of water to better mankind, or.....boil an ocean. (the boiling ocean analogy may seem crazy, but it did get me thinking)

[daddymikey1975]

My belief still stands even after all the ranting and raving.
I don't believe Overunity is possible because it seems (to me) that in order to get more out than you're putting in you're stealing. stealing from what or from where??

The nuclear reactor thing is where I'll go next..It's not overunity because there's an inefficiency in the whole process.. but examine the pieces of the process.. when fission occurs we're splitting one atom into two thereby RELEASING the energy. some may call this OU but I do not. All we've done is found a way to release stored energy. This process doesn't feed itself into releasing more stored energy. The inefficiency comes from harnessing the heat to make steam. There's no super efficient way to harness heat. Then we're making steam with it to power a turbine (which has mechanical resistance to motion that we must overcome).. and since this process doesn't feed itself continuously it's not OU (in my opinion)

BUT.. along with my beliefs again.. I believe that by studying OU and pursuing OU we will DEFINITELY stumble across a much much more efficient way to create HHO (which contains stored energy) so I say WHY NOT ??

maybe we can't keep our cars running perpetually without adding water.. if that's the worst that'll happen who cares.

I saw a commercial for a lincoln that parks itself. Anyone else see the commercial??
If someone had told Henry Ford that in the year 2009 there would be cars that park themselves without user input he would have laughed his a$$ off...

but such an animal DOES exist... how did it exist ?? by using technology, research, development, failure, research, development, failure, research, SUCCESS...

This is where the OU pursuit will take us (again, in my opinion)

Coffee.. I must say that you're disagreement with my opinion that Stu thinks outside the box is justified. LOL.. I still feel that he has out of the box thinking ability, and he definitely has the ability to get people thinking constructively. However (and here it comes again) what if he's the 'you can't do that' kinda guy just to motivate those that really can ?? sometimes we tell our children that they aren't capable of something just in order to motivate them into accomplishing that which we were denouncing.

many people told him that his elevator invention wouldnt work, couldnt work, and wasnt going to be safe. He still uses it to this day.

think stu is doing this to us in this case?? (probably not, but we can always hope)

mike