https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5oK0Y-1UnY&feature=related Watch this video and tell us what you think.

Quote from Jeff Nading on August 12th, 2011, 04:36 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5oK0Y-1UnY&feature=related Watch this video and tell us what you think.

I'm not going to vote based on the choices given.  But I think the question should be 4 gallons per minute of what?  I won't say that it is fake, maybe exaggerated some.  A lot of what is coming out the end of that torch is steam produced from the heat generated between the plates.  Even though Craig has a huge system for keeping the water and PVC tubes cooled down, there is still an area in the cell that can generate steam at the source of the heat.

Quote

Volume Expands by 1,517 The specific volume of water at 320°F (160°C) is 0.01765 cubic ft. / lb. of water. When water flashes into steam at 212°F (160°C), the specific volume increases to 26.78 cubic ft. / lb. The ratio of the final volume divided by the initial volume is 26.78 / 0.01765, which equates to 1,517 times its former volume. Therefore, when water vaporizes to steam (boils), it expands to 1,517 times its former volume.

The above quote is from http://www.sioux.com/why-steam.html

The other issue I see, is the video tries to down play the pressure build up of the gasses.  No one ever tests a cell with a valve closed on the outlet.  They always have it flowing freely and start the tests by filling the bottle.  In my opinion the maze of PVC and the gas separator are enough to build up more than 4 gallons of HHO/Steam at 20 PSI.  I have a feeling the machine could of been turned off completely, and still would of filled that bottle in the same time frame.  I found this website that might put it into perspective, even though it is talking about air, and not HHO/Steam:  
http://www.pulsair.com/info-sys/comp-air.htm

The reason I would not call it fake, is that the system he has probably does work very well as a torch.  The steam vapor/ HHO mix may work as a built in flashback minimizer, and adjusts the burn rate.  Plus I believe that steam with HHO can be important together when trying to run an engine with out fossil fuels.  On the other hand I would not say that it produces 100% dry HHO @ 4 gallons per minute.  It is much easier to create steam from heat (electrical resistance) than it is to create HHO by brute force electrolysis.  If it was not brute force, there would be no need to cool the water.  Just seeing water displaced in a bottle at a fast rate next to a stop watch does not account for all variables.  :cool:



Nate

Quote from firepinto on August 12th, 2011, 05:57 PM

Quote from Jeff Nading on August 12th, 2011, 04:36 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5oK0Y-1UnY&feature=related Watch this video and tell us what you think.

I'm not going to vote based on the choices given.  But I think the question should be 4 gallons per minute of what?  I won't say that it is fake, maybe exaggerated some.  A lot of what is coming out the end of that torch is steam produced from the heat generated between the plates.  Even though Craig has a huge system for keeping the water and PVC tubes cooled down, there is still an area in the cell that can generate steam at the source of the heat.

Quote

Volume Expands by 1,517 The specific volume of water at 320°F (160°C) is 0.01765 cubic ft. / lb. of water. When water flashes into steam at 212°F (160°C), the specific volume increases to 26.78 cubic ft. / lb. The ratio of the final volume divided by the initial volume is 26.78 / 0.01765, which equates to 1,517 times its former volume. Therefore, when water vaporizes to steam (boils), it expands to 1,517 times its former volume.

The above quote is from http://www.sioux.com/why-steam.html

The other issue I see, is the video tries to down play the pressure build up of the gasses.  No one ever tests a cell with a valve closed on the outlet.  They always have it flowing freely and start the tests by filling the bottle.  In my opinion the maze of PVC and the gas separator are enough to build up more than 4 gallons of HHO/Steam at 20 PSI.  I have a feeling the machine could of been turned off completely, and still would of filled that bottle in the same time frame.  I found this website that might put it into perspective, even though it is talking about air, and not HHO/Steam:  
http://www.pulsair.com/info-sys/comp-air.htm

The reason I would not call it fake, is that the system he has probably does work very well as a torch.  The steam vapor/ HHO mix may work as a built in flashback minimizer, and adjusts the burn rate.  Plus I believe that steam with HHO can be important together when trying to run an engine with out fossil fuels.  On the other hand I would not say that it produces 100% dry HHO @ 4 gallons per minute.  It is much easier to create steam from heat (electrical resistance) than it is to create HHO by brute force electrolysis.  If it was not brute force, there would be no need to cool the water.  Just seeing water displaced in a bottle at a fast rate next to a stop watch does not account for all variables.  :cool:



Nate

I agree Nate, probably should not have set up the poll, just wanted to get others opinions, thanks for sharing, Jeff.

(This post was edited from is original content.)[/quote]I totally agree h2o, thank you for sharing your thoughts and your ideals, Jeff.

Hi all if I had to vote, I would have to vote real and fake.  Yes 4 gal per min. is probably coming out the end of the hose and yes the gas is burnable yes it can cut thru some thin wall alunimum and yes the gas will run a lawn mower engine for a couple of seconds.  Given enough power and ss plates I think anyone involved with HHO could achive similar results.  Craig has probably advanced the technology beyond what he shows and you have got to hope someday soon he would be more forthcoming with information.  Craig says he has got a design to split H from O and I think if it works that would be a huge advancement in the technology.  Unfortunatly I think Craigs goals probably differ from ours and he is his own worst enemy.  We no longer have the luxury of time!!  Stan always said it would be up to us to bring in this technology and as we all can plainly see he was correct.  Stan also had a logo of a crown (corona) with 3 flames above and under it quoted Job 38:22-23  "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?"  Then JESUS CHRIST IS LORD under that.  The story of Job is basicly a guy that had it all, lost it all, then got it all.  I guess what I am saying is keep the faith and keep our eye on the prize and do not let distractions waste one of our most valuable assets TIME.  Stan also always said "Praise the Lord and Pass the Information" or something like that??  Same thing!!

Quote from Blazer on August 14th, 2011, 09:27 AM

Hi all if I had to vote, I would have to vote real and fake.  Yes 4 gal per min. is probably coming out the end of the hose and yes the gas is burnable yes it can cut thru some thin wall alunimum and yes the gas will run a lawn mower engine for a couple of seconds.  Given enough power and ss plates I think anyone involved with HHO could achive similar results.  Craig has probably advanced the technology beyond what he shows and you have got to hope someday soon he would be more forthcoming with information.  Craig says he has got a design to split H from O and I think if it works that would be a huge advancement in the technology.  Unfortunatly I think Craigs goals probably differ from ours and he is his own worst enemy.  We no longer have the luxury of time!!  Stan always said it would be up to us to bring in this technology and as we all can plainly see he was correct.  Stan also had a logo of a crown (corona) with 3 flames above and under it quoted Job 38:22-23  "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?"  Then JESUS CHRIST IS LORD under that.  The story of Job is basicly a guy that had it all, lost it all, then got it all.  I guess what I am saying is keep the faith and keep our eye on the prize and do not let distractions waste one of our most valuable assets TIME.  Stan also always said "Praise the Lord and Pass the Information" or something like that??  Same thing!!

Thanks for sharing Blazer

Ummmm, I jumped to 7min... looks like a bunch of actors.

Quote from KevinW-dirtwill on August 16th, 2011, 06:55 PM

Lol... CW is a joke... I jumped to 7min... looks like a bunch of actors. lol

I have to agree. It appears to be a promotional video for the uneducated and ill-informed who might, in their naivety, throw money at this guy.

It is all meaningless without detailed figures of the power being used, and the fact that he works in gallons rather than litres immediately raises suspiscions as to his credentials - very crude.  And let's face it, pump enough power into many electrolysers and you can produce enough gas to wield a torch.

I do however think that he would make a good politician as they also are very adept at sounding very convincing whilst in fact talking utter rubbish!  

no comment... lol some of you know why... :) ~Russ

So maybe someone can do the math here for me, this gentleman said that he is running the unit at 4000 watts and 72 volts.... Holy cow, that 55 amps of electricity. That is a large amount of power if you ask me. I have built a unit that produces 4lpm which is a little over a gallon at 18 volts and 40 amps (which is 720 watts). It is based off of a Smacks Cell and I will post a video if you want to see REAL proof of this. All of this is done without a PWM, frequency generator or anything like that. If my math is correct, my unit that I built in my garage would produce 5.8 gallons per minute of HHO gas if it was powered by the same amount of power as the video is claiming. The math of volts x amps is somewhat linear as it relates to plate surface area etc.. So I would have to say that these claims are not fake on the video, just that the efficiency of a unit needs to be greater than the mathematical equation above to be a viable source of energy.

Quote from sho14u on January 10th, 2012, 07:14 PM

So maybe someone can do the math here for me, this gentleman said that he is running the unit at 4000 watts and 72 volts.... Holy cow, that 55 amps of electricity. That is a large amount of power if you ask me. I have built a unit that produces 4lpm which is a little over a gallon at 18 volts and 40 amps (which is 720 watts). It is based off of a Smacks Cell and I will post a video if you want to see REAL proof of this. All of this is done without a PWM, frequency generator or anything like that. If my math is correct, my unit that I built in my garage would produce 5.8 gallons per minute of HHO gas if it was powered by the same amount of power as the video is claiming. The math of volts x amps is somewhat linear as it relates to plate surface area etc.. So I would have to say that these claims are not fake on the video, just that the efficiency of a unit needs to be greater than the mathematical equation above to be a viable source of energy.

You nailed it. Everyone in brute force knows that if you can take your alternator's 13.8V X 10A = 138 Watts, and get anywhere close to a single litre of HHO per minute, you are doing about as you'll get, brute force. That is to say, energy in, flow rate out. Of course you can push your alternator harder, and get more gas, that's not the point.

A credible brute force experimenter Larry, HHOPWR, who does not ask for money from anyone, and possibly has as much experience with brute force (as anyone? who knows... lots)... WHO IS DEFINITELY NOT FULL OF SH%$ ... reports these numbers in his Magnetic Beastie ...

13.12V X 115A = 1508 Watts operating his device at 94 degrees he can get 10.27 litres per minute. So we see Larry is getting 1508 Watts / 2.72 gallons of gas =  554 watts per gallon produced. Notice the similarities to Sho14u? Larry is over 7MMW, which is fantastic. I can't do that good with my unit! Note Larry has control of his temperatures, without cooling. This is because of his unique plate design and lack of current leakage. As well, a dry cell dissipates heat better, because of it plate exposure. He also does capacitive smoothing, so to speak, by putting batteries on the end of his transformation of power, taking out the AC ripple.

Craig is using 4000 watts of energy and producing 4 gallons, which equals 1000 watts per gallon roughly half of Larry's production. Here's the thing. The video talks about scrubbing the gas, and he says it is fully compressable so we are not talking about HHO, we are talking about 4 gallons of pure hydrogen, compressed. So we need to believe the numbers he is reporting, are as if the scrubbing process was not inline. Fair enough, we can still do that. He takes the HHO and uses a coelescer / catalytic seperator. Expensive. Why not just use a Hauffman device and a smaller coelescer / catalytic system that isn't the size of a closet? Like Walt Pyle does here. So if we take a third of that energy and allocate it producing oxygen, we'll say he used 2666 watts to make the hydrogen. (I can't honestly remember...) so he'd be doing it at 666 watts per gallon. That's just about right isn't it?

--> There is one or two problems with this theory though: A. He does actually mention Hydrogen/Oxygen as he is about to fill the bottle, yet the pop up text says no electrolyte, and the flame has color - alot of color - in fact it looks like a NaOH. pure hydrogen has no color, its an invisible flame. And then he also adds a note that the system could exceed 20 gallons per minute ... so .. it is very very ambiguous any way you look at it!

But, it's just the numbers. He is working with numbers nobody uses, and I admit, even I went ... whoah... but... do the math, am I wrong... nothing to see here folks?

It looks as if he is using something close to the Geroge Wiseman method to me. He talks about 400+ plates per unit, obviously his voltage is way high. Geroge Wiseman teaches you how to step up the voltage, to lower the amperage using 240VAC, and when you do, you end up with a long tube of PVC, that looks very much like Craig's unit. Not that it is a bad way to go, if a torch is your goal.. in fact it's a good way to go.

Note in his other video he wants to stack several units together to make a super unit. I think he says 6 or 8, to drive a large machine. That's over 20 kW in folks, better to run a Flacking electric motor at that rate, come on! Note in another video he stands next to a stepdown line transformer and asks the audience why we could not just have a Tesla coil transmitting the power wirelessly, instead of a big line transformer. If you've ever built a Tesla coil, you'd know why. If you had a Tesla coil eminating enough energy to power everything in a nearby home Wirelessly, or even one wire transmission not only would you have an incredibly dangerous setup but you had better cohere your load precisely to the output or you'd have three headed children popping out of mothers in the neighbourhood. What bothers me is him asking for money. HHOPWR and Delvis11 do not ask people for their damn money in every video. Which also attests their is no magic.

It's very hard to say...

Did he just do a real bad demo and he has something ...
but if he does... why so many plates? Why the color in the flame?

or..
is what you see, what you get, and any boasting of better possibilities is actual bullPoo, in other words, take the numbers, add it up as I did, and see no evil. But see no miracle either.

so, my vote real.
Real, no lies, no trickery.
But it ain't gonna change the world.

But as usual...
maybe I am wrong.. did I slip a digit... ?!

Quote from kcarring on January 11th, 2012, 11:16 PM

Quote from sho14u on January 10th, 2012, 07:14 PM

So maybe someone can do the math here for me, this gentleman said that he is running the unit at 4000 watts and 72 volts.... Holy cow, that 55 amps of electricity. That is a large amount of power if you ask me. I have built a unit that produces 4lpm which is a little over a gallon at 18 volts and 40 amps (which is 720 watts). It is based off of a Smacks Cell and I will post a video if you want to see REAL proof of this. All of this is done without a PWM, frequency generator or anything like that. If my math is correct, my unit that I built in my garage would produce 5.8 gallons per minute of HHO gas if it was powered by the same amount of power as the video is claiming. The math of volts x amps is somewhat linear as it relates to plate surface area etc.. So I would have to say that these claims are not fake on the video, just that the efficiency of a unit needs to be greater than the mathematical equation above to be a viable source of energy.

You nailed it. Everyone in brute force knows that if you can take your alternator's 13.8V X 10A = 138 Watts, and get anywhere close to a single litre of HHO per minute, you are doing about as you'll get, brute force. That is to say, energy in, flow rate out. Of course you can push your alternator harder, and get more gas, that's not the point.

A credible brute force experimenter Larry, HHOPWR, who does not ask for money from anyone, and possibly has as much experience with brute force (as anyone? who knows... lots)... WHO IS DEFINITELY NOT FULL OF SH%$ ... reports these numbers in his Magnetic Beastie ...

13.12V X 115A = 1508 Watts operating his device at 94 degrees he can get 10.27 litres per minute. So we see Larry is getting 1508 Watts / 2.72 gallons of gas =  554 watts per gallon produced. Notice the similarities to Sho14u? Larry is over 7MMW, which is fantastic. I can't do that good with my unit! Note Larry has control of his temperatures, without cooling. This is because of his unique plate design and lack of current leakage. As well, a dry cell dissipates heat better, because of it plate exposure. He also does capacitive smoothing, so to speak, by putting batteries on the end of his transformation of power, taking out the AC ripple.

Craig is using 4000 watts of energy and producing 4 gallons, which equals 1000 watts per gallon roughly half of Larry's production. Here's the thing. The video talks about scrubbing the gas, and he says it is fully compressable so we are not talking about HHO, we are talking about 4 gallons of pure hydrogen, compressed. So we need to believe the numbers he is reporting, are as if the scrubbing process was not inline. Fair enough, we can still do that. He takes the HHO and uses a coelescer / catalytic seperator. Expensive. Why not just use a Hauffman device and a smaller coelescer / catalytic system that isn't the size of a closet? Like Walt Pyle does here. So if we take a third of that energy and allocate it producing oxygen, we'll say he used 2666 watts to make the hydrogen. (I can't honestly remember...) so he'd be doing it at 666 watts per gallon. That's just about right isn't it?

--> There is one or two problems with this theory though: A. He does actually mention Hydrogen/Oxygen as he is about to fill the bottle, yet the pop up text says no electrolyte, and the flame has color - alot of color - in fact it looks like a NaOH. pure hydrogen has no color, its an invisible flame. And then he also adds a note that the system could exceed 20 gallons per minute ... so .. it is very very ambiguous any way you look at it!

But, it's just the numbers. He is working with numbers nobody uses, and I admit, even I went ... whoah... but... do the math, am I wrong... nothing to see here folks?

It looks as if he is using something close to the Geroge Wiseman method to me. He talks about 400+ plates per unit, obviously his voltage is way high. Geroge Wiseman teaches you how to step up the voltage, to lower the amperage using 240VAC, and when you do, you end up with a long tube of PVC, that looks very much like Craig's unit. Not that it is a bad way to go, if a torch is your goal.. in fact it's a good way to go.

Note in his other video he wants to stack several units together to make a super unit. I think he says 6 or 8, to drive a large machine. That's over 20 kW in folks, better to run a Flacking electric motor at that rate, come on! Note in another video he stands next to a stepdown line transformer and asks the audience why we could not just have a Tesla coil transmitting the power wirelessly, instead of a big line transformer. If you've ever built a Tesla coil, you'd know why. If you had a Tesla coil eminating enough energy to power everything in a nearby home Wirelessly, or even one wire transmission not only would you have an incredibly dangerous setup but you had better cohere your load precisely to the output or you'd have three headed children popping out of mothers in the neighbourhood. What bothers me is him asking for money. HHOPWR and Delvis11 do not ask people for their damn money in every video. Which also attests their is no magic.

It's very hard to say...

Did he just do a real bad demo and he has something ...
but if he does... why so many plates? Why the color in the flame?

or..
is what you see, what you get, and any boasting of better possibilities is actual bullPoo, in other words, take the numbers, add it up as I did, and see no evil. But see no miracle either.

so, my vote real.
Real, no lies, no trickery.
But it ain't gonna change the world.

But as usual...
maybe I am wrong.. did I slip a digit... ?!

kcarring, you said it better than I could and you understood what I was saying. I have built many of these damm things and the most efficient one was actually better than this guys (based on the math), which states that mine could produce 5.8gallons of HHO gas. Now as you stated, if he could produce 5 gallons of hydrogen gas through some kind of a scrubber? That would be cool. But I think this guys spent more money and time on his banner and chairs for his sales pitch than he did trying to create a solution. A solution to me would be building something that you can install in your vehicle and make it improve mileage. I don't think his unit would fit in a car, maybe a semi truck.... that could haul an extra 500lbs of batteries... My unit doesn't run off of a battery, just a 12volt signal for the field circuit of the alternator... I am not doing anything that any of us haven't figured out over the obsession of this science. With the exception of where you get the power. As I stated, I do not use a battery for the power for my unit, I use an unregulated alternator with a field circuit to get the power. What I want to learn on here is if there will be an increase in production, or a reduction in power draw, if I use a PWM, or some kind of frequency generator. My mind is slowly starting to absorb all the stuff on here and trying to choose what I will add to my system to increase what it does. I am still new on here, but I will find a way to add videos and pictures of some of my units

kcarring, you hit the nail on the head. I am not trying to put the guy down, obviously he has spent a lot of time creating his unit, banner,  and sales pitch. But is he really doing ANYTHING different than any of us have done? Ok, if he is producing 5 gallons per minute of pure hydrogen gas with the power application that we talked about, then yes you have done something amazing. But it is physics, power in, power out. I don't think it is possible. Now, with that being said, this forum has given me so many ideas of different directions to go. So, if we all pretty much agree that the HHO generator has it's limits, what do we do next? Magnetic particle generator? The coils? This is what has re excited me to get back into this mystery. I will be using my 76 Chevy Van (A-Team style) as a test vehicle. I currently get 18mpg on the machine. This was done through a full carb rebuild and a tranny change that is more suited for highway driving. I am hoping for 30mpg plus when I get my unit installed. Some people say "your going to be a millionaire" when you do this. As with most people on here, it has never been about the money. What would I sell? An idea? The reason we are all doing this is for a solution to our energy problems, I just want to do what I can. And at the end of the day, it's pretty cool to show someone something you built on your car and you get twice the gas mileage that they do. That is the fun in it  

Quote from sho14u on January 12th, 2012, 07:28 AM

kcarring, you hit the nail on the head. I am not trying to put the guy down, obviously he has spent a lot of time creating his unit, banner,  and sales pitch. But is he really doing ANYTHING different than any of us have done? Ok, if he is producing 5 gallons per minute of pure hydrogen gas with the power application that we talked about, then yes you have done something amazing. But it is physics, power in, power out. I don't think it is possible. Now, with that being said, this forum has given me so many ideas of different directions to go. So, if we all pretty much agree that the HHO generator has it's limits, what do we do next? Magnetic particle generator? The coils? This is what has re excited me to get back into this mystery. I will be using my 76 Chevy Van (A-Team style) as a test vehicle. I currently get 18mpg on the machine. This was done through a full carb rebuild and a tranny change that is more suited for highway driving. I am hoping for 30mpg plus when I get my unit installed. Some people say "your going to be a millionaire" when you do this. As with most people on here, it has never been about the money. What would I sell? An idea? The reason we are all doing this is for a solution to our energy problems, I just want to do what I can. And at the end of the day, it's pretty cool to show someone something you built on your car and you get twice the gas mileage that they do. That is the fun in it

Right on. I agree, who knows if Craig is really on to something or not. i definitely have my doubts, but then again, who knows. All i can say is that if and when ANYONE does "get on to something" - they are a complete fool if they think they can secure private investment and "tackle" the energy cartel. I think Stan Meyer proved that to us, above all? Great guy, great mindset, bad business plan. Period.

Russ, on the other hand, has all the potential in the world. He has the mind, the skills, the talents, his youth (it could take another decade!!), the passion, the following, and most of all -- I think the guy will keep it opened up. I have a hell of a lot of faith in him, actually, and my faith in people doesn't come easy.

There are many brilliant alternative energy experimenters out there.. JL Naudin, Andrea Rossi, but you know, it's a lot like "rock n roll"...

The world around you figures "you can't make it".
And so if and when you finally got something.
There is an incredible urge to get out of the garage and sell out, lock in to a contract.

It's an almost "natural" thing to do, given Western World Economics...

But you know what? Last November at Harvard, in one of the Western World's most prestigious economics classrooms, taught by "The Man" himself, the man who wrote the book on how we are taught to operate... a walk out occurred.

We have to walk away. In fact, it's worse, we have to set our minds, hit the fricken reset button, and stomp away fighting... create change, demand change, implement change.

And this mentality is set in stone with Russ Gries, I believe that. I hope others can trust the fundamental principles of this young man and present their data here in faith, and in earnest, cause this CAN BE DONE.

But WE have to do it. Don't expect it to get done for us. Or, don't expect for it to change any of our lives, even if it is done for us, expect only to be exploited, profited from, and fundamentally enslaved within, the system.

As David Suzuki states, there are three fundamental problems with our economy: 1. We incorrectly are born and raised to believe that money is the only measure of success 2. Economies and markets consider distribution to be unavoidable and thus integral to economy 3. We are lead to believe that economies can and should continue to perpetually grow.

And I'm sorry for the rant... but guys like Craig... if you're reading this. If you really got something. Disseminate - Distribute - Open The Floodgates.

There isn't time, nor money, nor reason... for your logic / plans. Do not evolve technology and expect to make it worldwide, without first realizing you must, in addition evolve in the very economic structure of what you desire to implement. You cannot market a new world energy in an old world marketplace.

Having said that, PLEASE, people, read this. And I truly hope RUSS reads this.

Given the new patent laws implemented with "First To File"... (for the US anyway).
That is a game-changer. If and when, a device has shown to be working.

You must be, first,... silent.
Contrary to popular belief...

This is why I believe it is important:
Read the new laws. First to File. There is no validity in proving that it was open source, first -- as there used to be. It has changed.

You must first discover your plan works and keep the final secret sauce secret.. THEN >

File for a patent.
Let the provisional expire.
Once expired, no one can patent it.
Then let it go, here.

Don't think others aren't watching.
Taking notes.
First to file folks, first to file... look into it at least... that's how I see it.

Do not release the final answer publicly only to have someone file, and stop you from disseminating your own discovery and stopping everyone from producing it.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

First-to-invent versus first-to-file
Main article: First to file and first to invent

A first-to-file rule is followed in most countries other than the United States. Under the rule, regardless of who the first inventor was, the person or legal entity who files a patent application first is the one who is granted the patent. In 2011, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act which changes the US to a first to file system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013.

A first-to-invent rule is followed in the United States for applications filed before March 16, 2013. Invention is generally defined to comprise two steps: conception of the invention and reduction to practice of the invention. When an inventor conceives of an invention and diligently reduces the invention to practice (by filing a patent application, by practicing the invention, and so on), the inventor's date of invention will be the date of conception. Thus, provided an inventor is diligent in reducing an application to practice, he or she will be the first inventor, and the inventor entitled to patent, even if another files a patent application (reduces the invention to practice) before the inventor.[3]

Efforts are currently being made to unify the patent laws of various countries, so that inventors have the same rights regardless of the country where a patent is granted.
[edit] Other considerations

Although patents normally go to the first inventor under a first-to-file system, an inventor who keeps the information secret or does not publish it does not establish prior art and loses the right to the patent. Without prior art, a subsequent inventor can get a valid patent on the same invention and then apply it against earlier inventor(s). An earlier inventor can forestall such an act by a subsequent inventor by recognizing the invention and applying for a patent, or by publishing details of how to practice the invention, thus creating prior art.

Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

I assume "Prior Art" only counts if you intend to patent?

Quote from firepinto on January 12th, 2012, 12:40 PM

From Wikipedia:

Quote

First-to-invent versus first-to-file
Main article: First to file and first to invent
Although patents normally go to the first inventor under a first-to-file system, an inventor who keeps the information secret or does not publish it does not establish prior art and loses the right to the patent. Without prior art, a subsequent inventor can get a valid patent on the same invention and then apply it against earlier inventor(s). An earlier inventor can forestall such an act by a subsequent inventor by recognizing the invention and applying for a patent, or by publishing details of how to practice the invention, thus creating prior art.

Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

I assume "Prior Art" only counts if you intend to patent?

Exactly... so if your intent is to disseminate globally, as I see it:

1. When you have the secret element, the final "clincher" that makes it work, for God's sake do not publish publicly!!! you are inviting absolute loss and disaster, rather...

2. You must file first. Once you file, you practice and publish simultaneously. You release whatever form of open source use policy you deem fit.

3. At that point you have filed, practice, and publish...

Even if you do not see the patent process through... if you let it expire.
It is impossible to say you were not the first to file. It is impossible to say you did not practice, nor publish. It is impossible to say someone else deserves to file the same patent...(in my mind, anyway - a patent lawyer is the person to ask...)

Keep in mind, it is actually against the law to reproduce a patented device, even for your own use, in your own home!

Not something very policeable, however, if it involves a new energy process... Lord only knows what they might do to stop people from using it, from regulation, to fines, severe reproduction penalties, RF detection - who knows...

The main point here is that the very laws that used to protect us, by open sourcing, collaborating, public domain publishing....

They don't mean Poo anymore boys and girls! Time to study the new rules carefully.

Personally I don't believe anyone can win trying to follow "the rules".  The Government makes up new rules every day with out a public vote.  I would have to suggest that they made these new rules with the purpose of scaring off open source.  I believe it's more important to get the knowledge out there, rather than worry about some "nasty little company" patenting it under our feet.  Seems like the going thing with companies is that they can't afford the patent costs in the first place.
The other thing is I don't think there is much "secret sauce" to this technology.  Tuning and calibrating maybe.  Once the base knowledge is known, anyone could switch up their products to get around patents.  Just like Tesla patenting his own light bulb for the 1893 World's Fair, because Edison wouldn't let Westinghouse use their patented screw-in base light bulbs.  He still was able to light up a show like no one else had ever done.
In any case patent happy people have to wait a year for March 16, 2013 anyway to be "first to file".   That gives us a year to make this thing wide open:P

Nate

Quote from firepinto on January 12th, 2012, 02:22 PM

Personally I don't believe anyone can win trying to follow "the rules".  The Government makes up new rules every day with out a public vote.  I would have to suggest that they made these new rules with the purpose of scaring off open source.  I believe it's more important to get the knowledge out there, rather than worry about some "nasty little company" patenting it under our feet.  Seems like the going thing with companies is that they can't afford the patent costs in the first place.
The other thing is I don't think there is much "secret sauce" to this technology.  Tuning and calibrating maybe.  Once the base knowledge is known, anyone could switch up their products to get around patents.  Just like Tesla patenting his own light bulb for the 1893 World's Fair, because Edison wouldn't let Westinghouse use their patented screw-in base light bulbs.  He still was able to light up a show like no one else had ever done.
In any case patent happy people have to wait a year for March 16, 2013 anyway to be "first to file".   That gives us a year to make this thing wide open:P

Nate

Big business and government are in bed with each other, they will try to stop this technology, but if the world has the technology, how can they stop it ?  

I voted yes, but I should stress That I am Far from as knowledgeable as most of you.  I should say, I think the CONCEPT is possible.  whether Mr Westbrook has actually accomplished it or not, I could not say from the video.

Quote

Big business and government are in bed with each other, they will try to stop this technology, but if the world has the technology, how can they stop it ?

i hope that mentality will work, and certainly do not want to carry on, and on, and on.. my only point is contemplate the position and strategy of the open source engineer. If we are unwanted by big oil, how do we poise ourselves for the future, can we learn from the past? How do the new laws affect us. Certainly if everyone, and anyone, ultimately accessed the right information, and built a device themselves,.. we'd win, but it is my belief you have to look at this from a "not so narrow" view. My reasoning is simple. If anyone, and everyone, wanted to 1. make their own gasoline 2. bottle their own oxygen 3. make their own hard liquor -- could they? can they? What are the reprocussions of doing so. What patents are being infringed, what penalties exist.

Now that the new law is coming into effect; no longer effective - is the excuse - "I can prove it was in the public domain" --

Patents usually do not include the absolute key to success. This is for trade secret retention. My concept is not my own actually it was introduced to me by Aaron over at EF. There is a thread there for anyone who is interested.

In a nutshell, I can go out and make whatever and heat my home or operate my car... with that energy solution / device -- but if I am caught there can be actions taken against me. Furthermore insurances can be considered "In Breech".

Can open source evolve into not only informative power to the people, but legal right to produce, and manufacture. Let's face it, not many could build this if you put the plans in front of their face. And that means if an intelligent planned approach to protecting the information is taken, in the end, more people could access the technology, and few big corporation could -easily- squash it. It is a complete reversal of normal patent procedure that Aaron has introduced. ALL key elements of the device would be revealed in the provisionals, such to actual protect those (instead of keeping things secrets). A few hundred dollars is all the patent application takes, initially... Once filed, applied, and shared... even though the patent was left to expire, technically it should be a heck of lot better than just releasing the information to the public, having some entity with far more money and power than us snatch up the particulars, patent them, bring those technologies to govt. / regulate them. Just like gasoline. Just like booze. If the answer is found here, why wouldn't you protect it for the people, instead of haphazardly disseminating key information, only to have Big Brother snatch it, and turn around and say, thank you, don't make it, don't sell it, and by the way, it's illegal to use it. Listen to the Daniel Dingo story; if he has an answer (hypothetically) then why do we not know the method, and what stops that method from being known, being used. If, he has a working solution, what are the barriers? Is it too late for him to disseminate?  Ignore whether what he has works, assume that it does, hypothetically and ask those questions. If there is one absolutely certain thing about Stan Meyer, it was that he was unable to protect whatever it was that he had, he was unable to take it to market. While his technology is obviously the focus here, I do not believe that aspect should be ignored - there is more than one lesson to learn. Is it enough to merely spread the method publicly, when the government is scrambling to change laws on patent application, internet control, and intellectual property, as we speak? Can a game changing proof concept be patent filed, applied, broadcasted publicly - all in short enough order to actually protect the information, for the future - protect the right of knowledge for the future. If done properly hundreds, if not thousands will see the working protected proof of concept, have the exact details protected from further patents to the degree that it is at least publicly "doable". That's what I am saying. Cheers All.

I'm not sure where to ask this question, pls feel free to move me.

I'm looking at hydogen/oxy production as part of the WFC project. My question is, how are we quanitifying performance? For example, would I say, my system can produce 1 litre/min from 120Watts? (10A @ 12V)??

I gather the basic technique for measuring how much gas is produced by filling a known bottle volume with water and have the gas displace that water. I am assuming pressure and temp to be ambient (1Bar, about 18DegC).  

My next question would be, how do we determine the gas mix? Do we need to? Are we just assuming the combined gasses given off will the standard textbook definition plus a small percentage of nasty gasses? (for eg. chlorine)

Quote

I'm looking at hydogen/oxy production as part of the WFC project. My question is, how are we quanitifying performance? For example, would I say, my system can produce 1 litre/min from 120Watts? (10A @ 12V)??

yeah that about standard.

Quote

I gather the basic technique for measuring how much gas is produced by filling a known bottle volume with water and have the gas displace that water. I am assuming pressure and temp to be ambient (1Bar, about 18DegC).

good question

Quote

My next question would be, how do we determine the gas mix? Do we need to? Are we just assuming the combined gasses given off will the standard textbook definition plus a small percentage of nasty gasses? (for eg. chlorine)

well... you may start here???

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=283

??? this the answer your looking for?

good questions. standards are out there and i would say your right on those.

~Russ

In my opinion these brute force water splitting is not the right way to go.i am thinking about the byproduct.It is a poisonus thing .The brown water what is left after the process is full of cancerous particles .Hexavalent chromium I think so.From the stainless stell plates.If we imagine more million units sold of this brute force maschine.And the more million liter poison will produced.Hmmm .This will not change the world for the right direction.Cheers                     http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/hexavalent_chromium.pdf