@karolisnxbl Yes, where is he? that demostrates that he’s not a prater, if not, he would be in all the televisions making a lots of money. Well, i’m spanish, but you have seen him in any media? Greetings!!
@knowledgemonger I don’t know if is a fake or not, but if he’s not making money for that, why is he making that? i don’t want to contradict you, simply show me that he’s a prater and i will give you the reason. If you will say to me that he is crazy, please, don’t response this comment. Greetings!!
I invented a breakthrough energy source that contradicts the law of energy conservation. I have a PROOF that there are electrodynamic phenomena that contradict the law of energy conservation. I am looking for $300 000 for a prototype and for $3M for patents. Making a 6 kW generator will cost $1200 in mass production, value of energy produced yearly $5400.
H. Tomasz Grzybowski
tel. +48-512-933-540
@michel9017 He may be crazy but that is a side issue here. It is the machine that matters. Try to describe what he is claiming the machine does and make that description fit with the laws of physics and you will see that there is no way to make it match up. The laws of physics just won’t let you do it.
Nonsense, if you want to break the hold of the oil companies just legislate funding fro production of thorium nuclear reactors. It is a crime against humanity we are not producing them.
@Harizl I agree that thorium reactors would be a good thing to develop. They are larger for the amount of power but they also don’t produce any bomb fuel. They are far from a perfect answer but they are a thing worth working on.
They are a little beyond what the folks who waste their time on trying to make magnet motors could do but they are an example of something that we are not doing while the time and money is being wasted.
@Harizl I am surprised that Thorium reactors can work out to be smaller. This must be a different kind than the proton driven ones I looked into some years back. Do you have any details on them?
@xshellshockx777 Your question sort of answers its self. We don’t see machines like this in cars for the same reason we don’t see pink unicorns pulling wagons through town.
@knowledgemonger
There were some google talks on them last year. all on yourtube. LFTR’s
Basically, they built some int he 50′s and they were ridiculously better for power generation, but lack of plutonium production was their only drawback.
@tangolobo you might have a bit of a problem there , It would probably help a bit if they gave you the basics on electrolosys …. Which is unfortunaly it is very in efficient and generaly it takes way more power in electricity / KW/h that what you get back in burnable fuel , then there is also the problem of a piston engine being only 25% efficient in converting that fuel back into electricity
@Yellow24y The oil companies have nothing to fear from this. It doesn’t actually work. If you really care about the energy future, study up on your physics and perhaps chemistry, dust off the mental took kit and join the effort. Pick an area to look at and follow it to the logical conclusion. Don’t be distressed if it doesn’t pan out, just document it so that others know it is a blind alley and look elsewhere. That is how real science goes. Far more ideas don’t work than do.
@ABWillis29 There is no technology here. All we see is a prop for a scam and a car powered by a bunch of batteries.
You indicate that you care about the subject so I will repeat the suggestion about learning physics and add a few. One the basis that a Watt saved is as good as a Watt found, learning about electronics and trying to improve the efficiency of a common item is a worthwhile thing to do also. The chemistry of combustion is also worth further study.
@RocketRodder There is no engine here. All we see is a prop for a scam. If it was real, it would be sweeping the market now. The video is old and don’t bother with conspiracy theories of why it is not available today.
@RocketRodder It is my sympathy with those who have made an error or have been deceived and my love for mankind that leads me to spend just a little of my time commenting on such things. I gain nothing directly by doing so. The only way that gain is if someone who reads my words invents something useful instead of wasting their time on nonsense. In that case, I do gain along with everyone else.
@freebiemadguy123 actually the queen and the banks are behind the oil compainies… they know this tech is for real, which is why they are pushing for carbon taxes. They need to keep us on the peg
@ParapaDrifter The reason for pushing carbon taxes is to try to get people to find some real energy sources that are not carbon based. It is basic economics that is being applied to an attempt to reduce the amount of carbon used.
The machine is fake. It is a prop for a scam. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the oil companies where behind nonsense like this. By tricking people into thinking that this is the way to non-carbon energy, they distract from the effort to find real ones.
3. August 2010 at 4:52 pm
@karolisnxbl Yes, where is he? that demostrates that he’s not a prater, if not, he would be in all the televisions making a lots of money. Well, i’m spanish, but you have seen him in any media? Greetings!!
3. August 2010 at 4:57 pm
@markdem You are saying that the engine is not saving energy? if not, i can’t understand why you aren’t impressed with that engine. Greetings!
3. August 2010 at 5:02 pm
@knowledgemonger I don’t know if is a fake or not, but if he’s not making money for that, why is he making that? i don’t want to contradict you, simply show me that he’s a prater and i will give you the reason. If you will say to me that he is crazy, please, don’t response this comment. Greetings!!
3. August 2010 at 8:28 pm
I invented a breakthrough energy source that contradicts the law of energy conservation. I have a PROOF that there are electrodynamic phenomena that contradict the law of energy conservation. I am looking for $300 000 for a prototype and for $3M for patents. Making a 6 kW generator will cost $1200 in mass production, value of energy produced yearly $5400.
H. Tomasz Grzybowski
tel. +48-512-933-540
4. August 2010 at 1:54 am
@michel9017 He may be crazy but that is a side issue here. It is the machine that matters. Try to describe what he is claiming the machine does and make that description fit with the laws of physics and you will see that there is no way to make it match up. The laws of physics just won’t let you do it.
9. August 2010 at 3:27 am
Nonsense, if you want to break the hold of the oil companies just legislate funding fro production of thorium nuclear reactors. It is a crime against humanity we are not producing them.
9. August 2010 at 1:21 pm
@Harizl I agree that thorium reactors would be a good thing to develop. They are larger for the amount of power but they also don’t produce any bomb fuel. They are far from a perfect answer but they are a thing worth working on.
They are a little beyond what the folks who waste their time on trying to make magnet motors could do but they are an example of something that we are not doing while the time and money is being wasted.
9. August 2010 at 11:16 pm
if this really dose work then why haven’t we seen this technology in cars or any thing yet ?
10. August 2010 at 12:05 am
@knowledgemonger
Thorium reactors are actually smaller, more efficient and incredibly more safe.
Magnet motors are anirrelevant waste of time.
10. August 2010 at 12:34 am
@Harizl I am surprised that Thorium reactors can work out to be smaller. This must be a different kind than the proton driven ones I looked into some years back. Do you have any details on them?
10. August 2010 at 12:36 am
@xshellshockx777 Your question sort of answers its self. We don’t see machines like this in cars for the same reason we don’t see pink unicorns pulling wagons through town.
10. August 2010 at 2:00 am
@knowledgemonger
There were some google talks on them last year. all on yourtube. LFTR’s
Basically, they built some int he 50′s and they were ridiculously better for power generation, but lack of plutonium production was their only drawback.
11. August 2010 at 7:40 pm
@tangolobo you might have a bit of a problem there , It would probably help a bit if they gave you the basics on electrolosys …. Which is unfortunaly it is very in efficient and generaly it takes way more power in electricity / KW/h that what you get back in burnable fuel , then there is also the problem of a piston engine being only 25% efficient in converting that fuel back into electricity
12. August 2010 at 4:43 pm
@xshellshockx777 the oil companies, bro. the damn oil companies…
13. August 2010 at 10:29 am
@freebiemadguy123 yes you’re right
14. August 2010 at 3:21 am
no dude that is bad for the oil business!
we have to keep getting money from people!
14. August 2010 at 3:31 pm
@Yellow24y The oil companies have nothing to fear from this. It doesn’t actually work. If you really care about the energy future, study up on your physics and perhaps chemistry, dust off the mental took kit and join the effort. Pick an area to look at and follow it to the logical conclusion. Don’t be distressed if it doesn’t pan out, just document it so that others know it is a blind alley and look elsewhere. That is how real science goes. Far more ideas don’t work than do.
20. August 2010 at 2:10 am
so where is this car now? What about the generator? I have looked but can find nothing more on either shown in this video?
I’m not joking around with this post – I am very interested in this tech!
20. August 2010 at 1:37 pm
@ABWillis29 There is no technology here. All we see is a prop for a scam and a car powered by a bunch of batteries.
You indicate that you care about the subject so I will repeat the suggestion about learning physics and add a few. One the basis that a Watt saved is as good as a Watt found, learning about electronics and trying to improve the efficiency of a common item is a worthwhile thing to do also. The chemistry of combustion is also worth further study.
21. August 2010 at 6:43 am
Someone’s been drinking too much HATERADE.
This engine is amazing.
21. August 2010 at 3:09 pm
@RocketRodder There is no engine here. All we see is a prop for a scam. If it was real, it would be sweeping the market now. The video is old and don’t bother with conspiracy theories of why it is not available today.
22. August 2010 at 12:30 am
@knowledgemonger Don’t be hatin’.
22. August 2010 at 2:50 pm
@RocketRodder It is my sympathy with those who have made an error or have been deceived and my love for mankind that leads me to spend just a little of my time commenting on such things. I gain nothing directly by doing so. The only way that gain is if someone who reads my words invents something useful instead of wasting their time on nonsense. In that case, I do gain along with everyone else.
22. August 2010 at 11:57 pm
@freebiemadguy123 actually the queen and the banks are behind the oil compainies… they know this tech is for real, which is why they are pushing for carbon taxes. They need to keep us on the peg
23. August 2010 at 1:33 pm
@ParapaDrifter The reason for pushing carbon taxes is to try to get people to find some real energy sources that are not carbon based. It is basic economics that is being applied to an attempt to reduce the amount of carbon used.
The machine is fake. It is a prop for a scam. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the oil companies where behind nonsense like this. By tricking people into thinking that this is the way to non-carbon energy, they distract from the effort to find real ones.