My responses refuting old worn out semi-theories on YouTube...

...describing how nitrogen does indeed figure into the equation of how on Earth did Stanley Meyer propel his dune buggy forward filling its gas tank with nothing but water?


Ammonia plus a little hydrogen powered Stan's dune buggy, not hydrogen alone, nor HHO (Brown's Gas), since these gases lack sufficient expansion -- upon their being burned -- to drive an internal combustion engine's pistons to meet the torque-demands of driving at normal speeds on open highways. The hydroxyl radical -- OH -- was probably discarded once Stan got the hydrogen he needed from splitting the water molecule in the electrolysis chamber. Hydroxyl radical may prohibit the use of ammonia as fuel since I can imagine it prematurely combining with hydrogen (within the engine) before the hydrogen gets a chance to ignite ammonia to burn. Ammonia is harder to ignite by comparison to igniting hydrogen while hydrogen has a harder time driving a piston -- and providing adequate torque -- for a sufficient duration before quickly imploding. Thus these two ingredients of ammonia and hydrogen are burned together and blended to achieve burn-rates comparable to gasoline or diesel. Any diatomic hydrogen (H2) remaining from the electrolysis of water and diatomic nitrogen (N2) from the air intake (plus recycled exhaust) were decomposed in separate chambers into their mono-atomic form (H + N + O) using high voltage (50,000 to 75,000+ volts) positively (not negatively) charged coronal ionization, then partially combined in the presence of water (with or without the use of a catalyst) to form ammonia leaving traces of hydrogen to regulate their combined burn-rate within the engine. Race-car spark plugs made of tungsten could be used to enhance the ignition-efficiency of ammonia. Nitrogen and water are the byproducts of burning ammonia and hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, plus a trace of ammonia and nitrous oxide out the tail pipe. The foundation for making ammonia (on the fly) from air dates back two centuries to the era of Sir Humphrey Davey (1807): "....electrolytic [mono-atomic] hydrogen will combine with nitrogen in the presence of water, while ordinary hydrogen will not." So, Stan filled his tank with water, but he ran his dune buggy on both water and air.

It looks like Stan put the electrolysis chamber as well as the hydrogen's positively charging ionization chamber all into his water fuel injector, but still retains the (positive) ionization of nitrogenous air/exhaust as a separate pre-carburetor chamber. So, this simplifies my flow chart a little.

The fact that Stanley asserts that he can regulate delivery of gaseous volume to the engine by regulating the voltage to the electrolysis cell, this tells me that there is ample supply of nitrogen in the air and in his exhaust -- more than enough. So, it's the hydrogen from electrolysis, not the nitrogen from the air, nor the conversion of nitrogen into ammonia, that will limit the thrust of the engine. So, high altitude travel is not a problem. All Stan has to do is increase his acceleration by increasing his hydrogen production on demand.

someone else...
What do you mean they lack sufficient expansion? HHO isn't anything new and you shouldn't attribute it to that charlatan...
[Me: I think, by "charlatan", he is referring to Aaron Murakami?] Space shuttles use the same stuff as fuel to launch. Granted they use it in a much more dense liquid form by storing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen and then spraying the two together into a combustion chamber.

The reason we use hydrogen and oxygen as rocket fuel is because when it burns it burns at 3000 degrees kelvin. About half as hot as the surface of the sun. It is purely the thermal expansion of the reaction that produces the force as the resulting steam is considerably more dense than the gases it is comprised of. Even still this extremely high temperature and the resulting thermal expansion make hydrogen and oxygen one of the most efficient fuels of this nature known to man.

You are basically saying rocket fuel isn't good enough for your car... good enough in relation to what? Do you mean comparative to the amount of energy you used to generate the gases? Because if so then I hate to be the one to talk you this but you are chasing your own tail here. Conservation of energy is indeed a thing.

Quote--"Space shuttles use the same stuff as fuel to launch." The pertinent question is whether or not they also use HHO outside of our atmosphere, because our air contains nitrogen which immediately becomes suspect as a non-credited, additional source of humongous, triple-bonded energy in combination with whatever HHO they are carrying on board for launches.

someone else...
Nitrogen does nothing for this burn. The hydrogen is the fuel and the oxygen is there to oxidize the burn for greater efficiency by providing sufficient oxygen for the hydrogen atoms to bond to as they burn. Without oxygen to bond to you end up with some of your hydrogen either not burning or scrambling to find something else to bond to. You just need your fuel and oxidizer here. Nitrogen actually just dilutes the fuel mixture rather than helps it. Besides a space shuttle launch mixes and burns the hydrogen and oxygen inside of a chamber so the actual burn is isolated from the nitrogen outside.

But no they don't typically use hydrogen and oxygen as fuel outside of earth's atmosphere. This is more because doing so would be extremely excessive. They simply don't need that kind of thrust in a vacuum. They mostly just use compressed gases that they release out into space for thrust there. Without even bothering to burn it.

Nitrogen would only dilute the fuel mixture if it were not first electrostatically split before the hydrogen ignites it. They both use oxygen to burn - each in their own way. Hydrogen is flashy: kaboom! While nitrogen gives more thrust. By not bothering to burn anything out in space exhibits the possibility that I am correct in my assessment. The hydrogen is there only to ignite the nitrogen once the nitrogen has first been electrostatically split into mono-atomic nitrogen. But electrostatics are not essential for the splitting of dinitrogen. Water vapor is another possibility. Think of Sir Humphrey Davy's quote from 1807....

"...electrolytic hydrogen will combine with nitrogen in the presence of water, while ordinary hydrogen will not." -- {cite}

By "electrolytic hydrogen", Sir Davy is referring to mono-atomic, nascent hydrogen.

Hence, just before the mono-atomic "nascent" nitrogen burns (after it has been first split by one means or another), it combines with mono-atomic hydrogen becoming ammonia, hydrazine, etc. Oxidation isn't always a simplistic affair.

Some inventors -- including Stanley -- have even gone so far as to bubble (aerate) the water with air (the water used for generating HHO) without giving credit (or without having sufficient awareness to give any appropriate credit or acknowledgement) to this outlook. There's one guy in Greece who has made a motorcycle run on water -- and, in my opinion, air -- by taking advantage of this bubbling preparation of the source water for HHO production.

Motorbike runs fueled by 100% tap water!

The original video in Greek...
Παρουσίαση της κίνησης μοτοσικλέτας με υδρογόνο από τον Πέτρο Ζωγράφο

And when he tries to explain his process to a bunch of guys on Greek TV, they all shake their heads in collective amnesia due in part to their own ignorance, but also due to this guy's lack of full explanatory understanding to his invention.

Ο Π. Ζωγράφος παράγει ηλεκτρικό ρεύμα από νερό. Η πατέντα υιοθετήθικε από το ΥΕΘΑ

Στη δημοσιότητα η εκπληκτική εφεύρεση που παράγει ρεύμα από νερό


Ζωντανή επίδειξη παραγωγής υδρογόνου στην εκπομπή Κίτρινος Τύπος

H μεγάλη εφεύρεση του Πέτρου Ζωγράφο στον Κίτρινο Τύπο

Ρεπορτάζ του για την εφεύρεση του Πέτρου Ζωγράφου

Κίτρινος Τύπος - Aπεριόριστο ρεύμα με νερό: Παρουσίαση της συσκευής του Π. Ζωγράφου στο

Πέτρος Ζωγράφος: Γεννήτρια μετατρέπει τη βαρυτική ενέργεια σε ηλεκτρική

ZOGRAFOS PETROS 3 Συσκευή παράγει ενέργεια απο το νερό Παρουσίαση στον Κίτρινο Τύπο 15 10 2015

Συσκευή παράγει ενέργεια απο το νερό - Παρουσίαση στον Κίτρινο Τύπο

ΑΠΙΣΤΕΥΤΗ ΕΦΕΎΡΕΣΗ - ηλεκτρισμός από νερό ?

In my opinion, the Nazi's used the same process against the Russians...

Only out of ignorance would we persecute Stanley Meyer. Nazi air-fuel bomb is the water fuel secret.

And the detonation of grain in farmer's corn silos is another instance of nitrogen interacting with a fuel...
Nazi air-fuel bomb, revisited.

someone else...
Okay... Here is the thing though right. You are now talking about using two different fuels and one oxidizer. Your electrolysis is only going to produce enough oxygen to oxidize the hydrogen burn because you are separating water molecules to generate it and when it burns it becomes water molecules again. So you only have one oxygen per every 2 hydrogen coming off your electrolysis. Any oxygen consumed by the nitrogen equates to unburnt hydrogen. Even if you use the oxygen from the air that still leaves you short as the air is only about 20% oxygen. Even still why burn two types of fuel?

I also notice you don't seem to be trying to represent any of this with any chemical formulas or anything so I am beginning to suspect perhapse your grasp of chemistry is limited? It seems like you want to believe this so much that you almost have to believe that even though the pieces don't fit that there must be some angle you just haven't found yet that will make it fit. Sometimes things just don't work the way you would like them to. Even if you tried working all this out in a chemical formula the math would always come up short somewhere. The hypothesis that this is possible simply runs counter to the established evidence. The only way you could achieve this would be if conservation of energy were wrong and I'm sorry but there is considerably more evidence to suggest that conservation of energy is right than there is that Stan's car ran on anything other than gasoline.

The 20% quantity of oxygen in the air is not an absolute limiting factor, but a factor limiting the rate at which oxygen is available to burn since all you need do to compensate for its lack of concentration is to wait a little longer for the air to rush into the situation or else accelerate its onrush. And the air must be figured into this equation, because we are not operating in a vacuum.

I don't need a complete background in chemistry to analyze the logic of quoting giants from the past, aka Sir Humphrey Davy. His one quote alone justifies my opinion -- all else aside.

{I'm sorry. Maybe you didn't see my lengthy edit after you responded to me?}

someone else...
The main issue though is that the entire premise is founded upon the unsubstantiated claim that this has been done before. By someone who never managed to produce anything remotely resembling evidence for that claim.

My purpose here is not to disprove the claim. I've no need to as the burden of proof is always on the claimant regarding positive claims. My purpose here was to test and see if you were even open to the notion that you could be wrong. Having spoken with you I must conclude that you are not. This presents an issue for you as, regardless of how ferverently you may believe this can be done, it is entirely possible you could be wrong correct? However, if you are unable to accept that possibility and it does indeed turn out that you are wrong you would simply go on continuing to search for evidence that does not exist indefinitely would you not?

Have you considered what conditions would be required to disprove it to you? I would highly recommend you contemplate this and establish some general idea of what it would take to disprove it to you or you may well doom yourself to forever chase a proverbial wild goose.

You're making two mistakes of non-reasonableness here...

One is assuming that proof needs to be a burden, and two for it to be final. Neither is the case...

Precision is everything, especially whenever it comes to physics. This is not a legal discussion in a court of law, but an open-ended discussion where the slightest of errors or over-sights can render a mistake by either party's point of view.

Take the Michelson and Morley experiment.
They presumed a universal reference point to the aether. This was an incorrect attribution to the aether and thus destroyed their experiment before they even began it. The correct attribution is more along today's viewpoint of describing the aether as "dark energy", or energy which cannot be measured but whose primary influence is upon secondary energy which we can measure, such as: light, and heat, etc. Primary energy is causative, while secondary energy is effectual.

As for finality, or substantiation, patience is the only requirement along with persistence of merit -- the merit of retaining openness. Finality is actually a blind-spot of faulty vision dooming the viewer to the constraint of mortality terminating the evolution of a concept. Since life goes onward, regardless of our mortality, the evolution of our concepts also progresses onwards to finer and finer values.

So, I do not need - nor would I want - a burden of proof to bury an open mind. I would want to develop the refinement of a concept so as to include more factors into its consideration - especially the consideration of open systems as potentially leaky, both ways, of non-accounted or non-accountable energy interfacing closed systems. The air is not part of any closed system of consideration, here, because the volume of air is considerably more substantial than are the stored gases onboard a launch rocket. So, the air could involve any HHO combustion and contribute a substantial energy involving the triple bond of dinitrogen over the single bond of dihydrogen or water or dioxygen if it can also be determined that the atmospheric dinitrogen can be prepared by splitting it into its mono-atomic form prior to its use (or else, we'd be blowing ourselves up each time we light a candle or a cigarette!).

This substantiation, or burden of proof, of the possibility of atmospheric nitrogen contributing to the combustion of hydrogen has already been demonstrated by the reversible chemistry inside a slightly evacuated glass bulb containing a tungsten filament, air, and water vapor. The tungsten acted as a catalyst and the nitrogen cycled endlessly back and forth between its dinitrogen and ammonia states. Without burning, or igniting, anything, the tenacity of nitrogen to form ammonia in the most simplest of conditions -- not even involving high voltage electrostatic charge/s -- supports the view that nitrogen is more than likely involved in the launch of rockets and Stanley's dune buggy.

And the use of air-fuel bombs by the Nazis on their Russian battle front also substantiates this nitrogenous claim since there is not enough stored energy in either carbon or the fuel used to detonate their bomb to supply the huge blast emanating from its ignition. The added effect could only have occurred due to atmospheric nitrogen contributing to the detonation as described in chapter 16 of Henry Stevens' book, "Hitler's Suppressed and Still-Secret Weapons, Science and Technology", pages 103 to 111.

Science is not a legal issue which can be settled in a court of law anymore than it could be a poll involving a democratic process because both are major fallacies of logic: appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. And appeal to emotion would be just as flawed. Popularity would be the easiest trap to adhere to generating a burdensome approach to an open-ended process of continual modification of our ideas in the light of additional information constantly added to the matrix of our viewpoints.

someone else...
You are taking in inert materials that you have to apply energy to in order to make them combustible. You may be pulling in your material, but all of the energy in this system is confined to this system. The fuel you are burning would have to produce more energy than you had to put into priming it to be burnt which would be in violation of conservation of energy. Either that or you would have to some how be creating a nuclear fusion or fission reaction in there, but given the apparent lack of adequate radiation shielding combined with the lack of reports that anyone died of radiation poisoning despite standing quite close enough for a lethal dose... I think it is safe to assume no nuclear reactions are involved here.

It takes next to zero wattage to produce a HV discharge by suppression of amperage. Where's the cost in energy?

This is why a Nazi thermobaric air-fuel bomb used on their Russian battlefront during WWII was so simple and powerfully efficient at amplifying their intended destructive effect, because the spread cloud of carbon dust did more than ignite itself; it also transformed atmospheric nitrogen in preparation for its detonation to amplify the blast of the fuel one quarter of second after the detonation of the carbon.

someone else...
How do you ever reach a conclusion then?

So then what? It totally works but we just haven't got the right (insert random variable here)? Is that it? This is why I brought up your apparent lack of knowledge of chemistry before. Chemistry is math and if you knew that math then you could literally run through every possible mixture you could do with these elements in the span of maybe an afternoon or two and identify the most efficient one quite easily. Not only that but you could calculate exactly how much energy would be produced vs how much was required and you would certainly be able to identify any that met the criteria to be plausible. Or I guess you could take the brute force approach of spending your entire life physically testing every conceivable mixture meticulously...

A lot of what you've said here doesn't even mean anything. Just a series of platitudes asserting the scientific method is apparently wrong for reasons that are only partially explained at best or out right asserted without evidence at worst.

Oh and I suppose that tungsten filament wasn't hooked up to anything either right? Because that would make it amazing. But I am guessing it was hooked up to an electrical power supply right? In which case the energy in the system was all coming from the battery. How much energy do you suppose it was producing? How do you think that compares against what it was consuming?

It seems to me what is going on here is that you are looking at multiple different reactions and energy transfers and failing to understand exactly how much energy is at each stage or how much is lost at each transition. Furthermore you are in the process making the implicit assertion that either one of these stages is producing more energy than it is consuming which violates the conservation of energy or that one of the fuels already contained excess energy upon being input into the system. The latter is refuted by the fact that all of these materials enter the system in an inert state that they must first have energy added to them to make them reactive.

You are basically just confusing yourself.

The wattage needed to split atmospheric dinitrogen is next to nothing while the amperage used to supply that HV discharge is suppressed. The capacitance of atmospheric nitrogen is essentially an untapped resource in which no one has computed its vast quantity. So, strictly speaking, this is equivalent to having a very large gas tank filled with free, unlimited fuel (nitrogen) and a very small series of batteries and tanks filled with electricity and water. But since both of these latter items are merely acting as catalysts, their abundance is not mandatory.

Where is there required a calculator to compute the relationship a catalyst has with unlimited fuel?

It would be gross negligence on my part to ignore the big picture and insist I compute everything to the minutest accuracy. That's only necessary for supplies delivering diminishing returns. That doesn't apply to unlimited atmospheric nitrogen. It could apply to recyclable water vapor coming out the tail pipe. But that's a minor detail of improving overall performance and not intrinsic to the operation of this system.

someone else...
A high voltage discharge with low amperage does indeed require very little energy. It doesn't hardly put out very much either.

It is amazing to watch. You can jump from making assertions about how little energy is required to initiate the reaction to making assertions about how much it can produce, but you never address both simultaneously. You've clearly no idea how the two relate to each other. Yes. You can put very little energy in. Yes. You can pull a great deal of energy out. Granted this is dependant entirely in the scale being considerable small in the former than the latter...

Which do you think has more energy? A lithium battery pack from a cellular phone or a fully loaded .45 calibre revolver? Most people will say the revolver, but the truth is both contain roughly the same amount of energy. The battery just releases it's energy in small amounts over time while the bullets do so all at once in a localized manner. This is how these energy scams work. They use flaws in people's perception to trick them into believing more energy was generated than was put in.

Yes generating a high voltage spark doesn't require that much energy, but how much energy is your electrolysis taking? How much energy are you putting in to get the nitrogen ready? How much energy are you actually able to get out of the reaction afterwards? The only way you could make this phesible is if not only could you demonstrate that more energy is being produced than being consumed in the process from start to finish, but that enough excess was produced so as to be able to run something else too. This does require conservation of energy to be violated no matter how you slice it and if true could very easily be demonstrated. Yet it has never been demonstrated.

Yes a high voltage spark does require almost no energy, it also generates almost no energy. That is why we typically use them to ignite a fuel source. However, remember you are starting with inert materials which do not burn. How much energy do you have to put in to make them reactive? What percentage of that energy do you get back from the reaction? Which is the larger value?

Not all discussion of energy accountability revolves around the conservation law since favorability can skew the result.

If a high voltage positive charge makes it favorable for an ion of nitrogen to bind with a similarly charged ion of hydrogen rather than with a positively charged ion of oxygen by first charging air separately from hydrogen before mixing the two while still under HV charge, then we have favored the formation of ammonia while prohibiting the formation of water. And all of this favoritism based, not exclusively on a fixed quantity of energy that we supply to all three ions to accomplish this, but also on electronegativity and electron affinity of each respective ion. Yet, to burn ammonia in the presence of oxygen - along with a little hydrogen to help boost the poor ignition characteristics of ammonia, yields much more energy than whatever was required to incourage the formation of ammonia and far more energy than would have been yielded by the mere oxidation of hydrogen in the presence of oxygen.

Electronegativity and electron affinity is the leverage used to circumvent the conservation law in this instance.

Hydrogen has three possible oxidation states of -1, 0, +1.
Oxygen has five: −2, −1, 0, +1, +2.
Nitrogen has nine: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5.

Hydrogen's electronegativity is: 2.2
Oxygen is: 3.44
Nitrogen is: 3.04

The principle of electronegativity explains the affinity for one element to ionically bind with another.

The principle of oxidation state explains the energy contained in an ionic bond, and hence explains the powerful or weak storage of energy upon combustion. So...

Three hydrogen atoms of 6.6 electronegativity versus 3.04 for one nitrogen atom yields an absolute value difference of 2.96.

One hydrogen atom's electronegativity is 2.2 versus that of one oxygen atom's 3.44. Their difference is 1.24.

An electronegative difference of greater than 2 favors ionic bonding. Hence, ammonium ion wins out over hydroxyl ion.

Hydrogen's oxidation state at maximum positive ionization is +1, oxygen is +2, and nitrogen is +5.

The absolute value difference between one hydrogen and one oxygen is: (+1) - (+2) = |+1|.

Conversely, the absolute value difference between three hydrogen atoms and one nitrogen atom is a bit larger: [3 x (+1)] - (+5) = |+2|.

So, nitrogen will have a greater affinity for hydrogen as well as have a greater release of energy upon combustion when it is reformed under the influence of a powerful positive ionization. By comparison, the formation of a hydroxyl ion will not be as easy to form, nor contain as much energy, as will ammonium. All of this is in contradistinction to a non-ionized state, ie: the conventional norm of assumed operation of our internal combustion engines.


Sounds stupid, yes? Yet we use levers all the time to make nature do whatever we want it to do especially when we're limited in energy to do it.

The Romans mined gold by dissolving whole mountains with erosion leaving a residual low-lying flood plain where the former mountain once existed. Now, imagine reducing the size of that mountain the hard way with pick and shovel and doing the energy calculations ahead of time to notice the fallibility of that latter method. Duh!

someone else...
And again... These are all inert when you started so how does the energy you put in to make them reactive compare to the energy you get out of the reaction? Sure the spark doesn't use much energy, but how long does it take to ionize all that gas? How much energy total does it take per volume? I think you are losing sight of how much energy you are putting into this system.

It's partly worth "losing sight of how much energy" I am "putting into this system" on the basis of this, alone, stated previously...

"So, nitrogen will have a greater affinity for hydrogen as well as have a greater release of energy upon combustion when it is reformed under the influence of a powerful positive ionization. By comparison, the formation of a hydroxyl ion will not be as easy to form, nor contain as much energy, as will ammonium. All of this is in contradistinction to a non-ionized state, ie: the conventional norm of assumed operation of our internal combustion engines."

Your objection is relevant to your earlier objection that ammonia has more expansive characteristics than does hydrogen alone. {And BTW, ammonia has to be blended with hydrogen lest it fail to ignite without hydrogen to assist.} Yet, hydrogen implodes immediately after it explodes undermining its exclusive use as a rocket, or any other form of, propellant. Thus, the addition of ammonia -- or at least anything else for that matter -- is required lest hydrogen fail to deliver as promised. And when ammonia is blended with a little hydrogen, the result is similar to gasoline, overall, when looking at thermal expansion versus ignitability.

What's popular these days? Hydrogen-boost systems involving the ignition of gasoline with hydrogen or HHO, not hydrogen alone. A car in Florida was even invented to run on wet, orange fruit pulp by a guy who went around orange juice manufacturers to pickup their free organic refuse. But he used hydrogen split from a water tank onboard to help ignite this wet mass of garbage to run his economy sized car and get himself on 60 Minutes TV show.

So, I'm not proposing anything farfetched when it comes to improving performance if it weren't for the only objections you still linger on are whether or not the onboard production of ammonia doesn't cost too much energy to produce or not, and whether ammonia blended with hydrogen has greater thermal expansion than does hydrogen alone, yes? Yet, this last objection I already covered by analyzing the electronegativity and electron affinity for nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. So, your objection to energy cost of the onboard production of ammonia still stands. And it stands to reason that I should respond or bow out. I choose the latter since it has not been my job to give you what you want: all the facts. I set for myself the task of merely hypothetically supporting this idea set forth by Peter Lindemann when he shared privately this general scheme without sharing any further details, namely: the positive ionization of air intake and the positive ionization of hydrogen -- and both are ionized separately, followed by their blending, and then combustion onboard as the car is running. And by using Aaron Murakami's eBook on "Water Fuel Secrets",

...I discerned Stanley's obfuscation stated clearly in his earlier Canadian patents that nitrogen was involved in his operation. So, from these few statements, I generated all of these videos in an attempt to support these statements with an understanding based on whatever is already commonly known in any relevant scientific knowledge base. And what I failed to include in my initial investigation was the role that electrochemistry plays in this -- big time.

So if I have failed you, or anyone else of similar intent, then it is because I merely went about this not unlike a journalist wanting to get a scoop on the one hand, but also wanting to verify from a theoretical standpoint before "going to press" on the other. I have fulfilled my mission on the credibility of the possibility of ammonia blended with hydrogen being superior to hydrogen alone based on the post at Energetic Forum on "Selective Chemistry via Electronegativity and Electron Affinity from HV+ Ionization - Energetic Forum" excerpted in my previous comment cited above from here...

I am not handing you the goblet of fulfillment, because that is not my job. I am handing you an empty goblet, but a goblet endowed with chemically potential structure capable of suggesting the viability of an expanded view on this topic. Don't expect me to do anything more than this.

How bad is it, Eric?

The Triple Bond of Di-Nitrogen Molecule (N2) Comprising 80% of our Air


Electron Configurations, Paramagnetism and Diamagnetism

For Your Reading Pleasure...

Stanley Allen Meyer - Water Powered Car - YouTube

Perpetual Motion - YouTube

Contact the author on Facebook.