Jones,
First, the device was independently tested at an excellent hydrogen lab in New Jersey. They worked with Francisco Pacheco's hydrogen system prior to Puharich, and validated both of their unusual results. We knew Pacheco, and the lab, which is unfortunately long gone.
Second, it is well known in hydrogen circles that apparent efficiencies can be as high as 120%, since ambient thermal energy can be employed. Puharich restated that information, which can be found in a thick volume containing Congressional Testimony on Hydrogen published after the 1973 oil shock.
Perhaps unusual orders of harmonics were involved. Puharich used his own, rather unique, electronics, developed for the electrolysis of blood. He was a research physician. To my knowledge, nobody has reproduced his work using his electronics. The circuits are readily available in earlier patents.
We were not concerned with his device operating over unity, but only with eliminating the need for a conventional electrolyte.
I agree that Meyer was a fraud. and have never looked into Keely, but I'll take your word for it.
There are later patents that deal with electronic separation of water - some with no need for anything but tapwater. Some refelct systems that ran engines quite successfully.
Our commercialization interest in water as fuel was always linked to a magnetic generator. When Puharich died, about 1995, although we had evaluated the claims of many inventors, we had not yet found anything using ZPE magnetic conversion technology that appeared to have practical potential.
Mark
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Water as fuel Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:07:44 -0700
Mark,
I think we have discussed this before. No one other than the inventor, AFAIK ever got his thing to work. Many have tried and are still trying, and the idea is similar to Keely and Meyer (both crooks) but where is the study, the experiment or the testable OU device, or anything other than anecdote which shows overunity?
I hate it when disinformation like this keeps recirculating over the internet without at least some basis in demonstrable fact, or at least a valid theory to back up the anecdote. Is there a valid theory?
> (Resonance is what shatters a crystal goblet when an opera singer
hits the exact note which vibrates with the crystal's molecular structure.)
That may be true with regard to the goblet, but the resonant frequency for water is now well-known, 22 gigahertz, though Puharich would not have known this in 1983. 22 Ghz is nowhere near the frequencies that Puharich used (it is orders of magnitude higher). All of Puharich's frequencies, singly and in combination, have been tired to no avail. A Russian chap on one of the watercar forums has done exhaustive research on this, but noboby wants to know the truth, apparently, because this mindless stuff about magic resonance keeps floating around with no study to back it up, and many studies that contradict it.
Plus, if you had rights to the patent, and it worked, one would have to assume that you were remiss in not commercializing it, no?
Jones
