OverUnity Research

Not surprisingly there is more than one way of dissociating the water molecule. However, dissociation of the water molecule does not necessarily lead to the evolution of hydrogen and oxygen gases.

Only when the water molecule fractures cleanly into atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen will gases be immediately evolved. However, under most circumstances the water molecule cleaves into ions of H+ and OH-. When the water molecule dissociates into two ionic species, for gases to be produced, these ionic species need a charge exchange medium whereby they can drop off and collect charges in order to become atoms.

I've seen on numerous occasions that some self-appointed, so-called experts in the field now demean Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis as out-dated and irrelevant. How ridiculous such accusations are. All this does is emphasise their total lack of understanding of Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis, and indeed their general level of ignorance on the subject.

Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis are not difficult to understand, and anyone applying themselves to it will quickly understand why these laws are as valid now as they were when Faraday first described them.  People who casually dismiss these laws are clearly uneducated and/or ignorant of the facts, and as such are not people who should be trusted or taken seriously.

The term over-Faraday is often employed to situations whereby it would seem that more gases are being produced for a given power than allowed for by Faraday's laws. Because of the term over-Faraday, many people also seem to think that this itself invalidates Faraday's laws, making them obsolete. It of course does not.

Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis take into account every ion/electron reaction at the electrodes, which is why the electroplating industry can accurately determine exactly how much current will have to pass through an electrolytic solution for any given amount of deposited product.  However it must be borne in mind that side reactions can occur in a standard electrolyser, and as these reactions also abide by Faraday's Laws, they will to a lesser or greater degree have an impact on the volume of gas evolving.  That is, side reactions such as iron in the electrodes reacting with oxygen to form an oxide will accordingly reduce the volume of oxygen evolving as gas.

Faraday was using dc current, plain and simple, and easy from a measurement point of view.  Start pulsing dc, and measurement gets a little more difficult because not only does this ask a lot more of the measuring equipment and/or involve some additional calculation, but other elements of dissociation can come into play.

With a pure dc current drawn through an electrolytic solution, then the product or products (in the case of water: hydrogen and oxygen) is proportional to that current. The more current, the more product/s. Calculations are relatively easy and straight forward.

I've also seen it written that any voltage above the required voltage necessary to induce electrolysis does nothing but create heat. This of course is nonsense. Over voltage may reduce overall efficiency of the electrolyser due to the V x I = W of ohms law, but by the very same law also states V/R = I. In other words increasing the voltage will of course increase the current and so result in more product/s.

The theoretical minimum voltage to initiate Faraday electrolysis of water is 1.23 volts, but even this figure is temperature specific (around 18 deg. C). Raise or lower the temperature of the electrolytic solution and this optimum voltage figure changes accordingly. In reality there is also an over voltage potential at the electrodes that has to be overcome as well as the resistance of the electrolytic solution itself, and so typically 2 – 2.5 volts minimum is required. As inert electrodes go, platinum electrodes are the most efficient, requiring minimum over-voltage potential, but not only are they very expensive, they are also hard to come by. This is why stainless steel is generally the electrode metal of choice for electrolyser builders - be they businesses or just water fuel enthusiasts experimenting in a shed.

Faraday's Laws are beautifully simple and extremely elegant, but they do not apply to all situations, which is where problems and confusion often stem from. Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis are in evidence when ionic species are the current carriers within a solution and when there are charge exchange mediums present (ie, electrodes in contact with the electrolytic solution). In cases where water is caused to dissociate and evolve as hydrogen and oxygen through other means, such as plasma arcs, ultrasonic cavitation and electromagnetic radiation, when there are no charge exchange mediums present, then Faraday's Laws cannot reliably be applied.

However, so tried and trusted are Faraday's Laws, that they are always used as a baseline from which to judge other forms of dissociation of the water molecule.

Complications arise when people try to ascertain how much power it will take to produce a given volume of gas, because voltage then comes into play, but of course does not itself feature in Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis.

Under ideal conditions of voltage and temperature and assuming 100% efficiency, implementing Faraday's Law will require 3.658kW/hr to dissociate 1 litre of water into its component gases.

At STP, this will produce 1,358 litres of hydrogen and 679 litres of oxygen.

Emphasis here on STP, which hints at yet another complication. Hot gas expands and so has greater volume at equivalent pressure than when cold. So this is yet another factor that can provide very misleading results if not taken into consideration.  As a reliable guideline, the difference in volume of a gas (any gas) at 0 deg, C and 100 deg. C is 36%. That is 1 litre of gas at 0 deg. C, will become 1.36 litres of gas at 100 deg. C, at equal pressures.

And of course something I never even see considered when people are measuring gas output is the water vapour content. People forget that water vapour is a gas that will be present along with the hydroxyl mix.

Yet further complications arise when the current is made to pulse and/or more than one method of dissociation is occurring within an electrolytic cell – the latter of which may be occurring completely unbeknown to the electrolyser builder/operator.

It should now be very clear to all that there are many factors to be taken into consideration when trying to determine electrolyser efficiencies, and indeed many possible areas for mistakes, miscalculations and misreading or misinterpretation of results.

Sadly, most amateur Water Fuel enthusiasts completely neglect to consider any of the above-mentioned factors which in itself makes way for wildly optimistic results and often even wilder claims.


To be continued...

Dr. Stiffler

I did genuinely try to converse with this guy in order to discuss and explain the science behind his wireless electrolysis, but he didn't take too kindly to my interpretation of the science and immediately spat his dummy out and had a tantrum. But there you go, I do tend to have that effect on people. I guess people simply don't like having their fantasies dispelled!

http://wn.com/Dr_Stiffler_SEC_Exciter_Hydrogen_production_via_diode

http://pesn.com/2010/06/25/9501663_Stifflers_Spatial_Energy_Coherence_SEC_Exciter_Hydrogen_Production_via_Diodes/

You will note from the video in the first link that Stiffler is almost beside himself in thinking that he has made an enormous breakthrough that will change the world. Unfortunately he has not considered the electrochemistry, and was not open to explanations that did not involve some mysterious form of spatial energy.

The first thing Stiffler states is that ONLY hydrogen is being produced, NO oxygen!

Of course this is absurd, you can't dissociate the water molecule and get only hydrogen without oxygen.

What Stiffler was doing is dropping a small signal diode in a test tube of water and then wirelessly exciting the water with an EM radiation.  Now contrary to what Stiffler states or thinks, there is really no mystery here.  Quite simply the diode is acting as a charge exchange medium, and working in a similar way to the old Cat's Whisker radio sets. A small voltage develops across the diode, which of course will only pass current one way and so rectifies the signal, and H3O+ and OH- ions in the water are so able to drop and collect charges.

Clearly hydrogen is being evolved at the anode leg, while the tin on the cathode leg reacts with the hydroxyl ion to form and oxide, which then forms a precipitate which slowly drops to the bottom of the test tube. So oxygen is being produced as well as hydrogen, but it is reacting with the tin coating on the diode legs. If inert electrodes are attached to the diode (or AV plug) legs then hydrogen and oxygen are evolved as gas just as in normal electrolysis.

I did some experimenting of my own and as expected, found that that the diode body itself does not need to be submerged. In fact it works fine when just the legs are in the water. Furthermore, I was able to achieve satisfactory results with my Car Ignition Coil cct, at various frequencies from 5kHz – 150kHz.

Initially I thought that increasing the size of the electrodes would possibly allow for more charge exchanging, more current flow, and hence more gas production, but I found this not to be the case. In fact it made no difference whatsoever. Adding sodium sulphate as an electrolyte, did improve things marginally, but nothing like when you dope an electrolyser and see the gas suddenly pour off.

Why?

I think because current is not flowing through the water (or electrolyte) itself. What I think is happening is that the diode is rectifying the applied EM signal and in doing so is producing a voltage across itself, just like a crystal radio. Any H3O+ or OH- ions in the vicinity of the diode legs will act exactly the same as those near the plates of an electrolyser and give up or take on charges. But the key thing is that this set up is relying on the tiny proportion of self-ionisation occurring in the water, and the tiny current is just flowing through the diode/s.

Why is hydrogen being evolved at the anodes of the diodes?  This is because of the way current flows through a diode... think about it!

In conclusion, though this at first may seem like a very intriguing and unusual phenomenon, the reality is that the science is very easily explained and in fact holds no mystery.

Energetic Forum Thread

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6431-none-electrolytic-splitting-h2o.html

I bring this up, because this is a thread on Energetic Forum that unfortunately resulted in my being banned when questions I asked the thread originator were considered disruptive and/or inappropriate and hence the forum moderator and self-important asshole, Mystic Murakami decided to curtail my membership.  Funny how simply asking questions can be construed as disruptive, eh!

Perhaps it's just that I know enough and have been around long enough to see through the bullshit and get an almost immediate and instinctive impression of people through what they state – or don't state – but whatever, my instincts have never failed me yet.  I asked very legitimate questions that often go to the heart of the matter, questions which were either avoided or totally ignored. Same old story really, this guy claims he has done this and that, claims he knows how to do it, but then fails to answer relevant questions or provide anything by which to substantiate his claims. It's yet another wild goose chase which the uneducated and gullible are only too happy to be part of.  And let's face it, the education of someone that writes, 'None Electrolytic' instead of the correct, 'Non-Electrolytic' in the thread title must be immediately suspect.  I'm afraid just another attention seeker, fooling foolish people into thinking he knows more than he does – or ever will.

John Kanzius however is a different story.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves

http://rustumroy.com/Scans/Observations%20of%20polarized%20MRI%20vol%2012%20is%201.pdf

There has as yet - at least to the best of my knowledge - been no official explanation of the electrochemistry taking part in the reaction that dissociates water into hydrogen and oxygen with no charge exchange medium, ie, no electrodes.

Indeed, we do not know for sure that both hydrogen and oxygen are being evolved.

Further investigation has shown that any electrolyte works, not just the NaCl that Kanzius used when he initially observed this phenomenon. In fact, just as in standard electrolysis, the better the electrolyte is, the better the reaction.  

Kanzius used 13.56 MHz, which is simply one of the frequencies allocated for medical research and/or medical equipment and so likely not to be that critical. Hence other frequencies are likely to be more or less efficient.

Of all the methods of dissociating the water molecule, this is by far the most intriguing to date, but unfortunately also the least openly researched with very little available information, and probably the least understood.

To be continued....

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.10.11, 10:14:13

Dissociation of the Water Molecule via EM Irradiation

Perhaps it's just that I know enough and have been around long enough to see through the bullshit and get an almost immediate and instinctive impression of people through what they state – or don't state – but whatever, my instincts have never failed me yet.  I asked very legitimate questions that often go to the heart of the matter, questions which were either avoided or totally ignored. Same old story really, this guy claims he has done this and that, claims he knows how to do it, but then fails to answer relevant questions or provide anything by which to substantiate his claims. It's yet another wild goose chase which the uneducated and gullible are only too happy to be part of.  And let's face it, the education of someone that writes, 'None Electrolytic' instead of the correct, 'Non-Electrolytic' in the thread title must be immediately suspect.  I'm afraid just another attention seeker, fooling foolish people into thinking he knows more than he does – or ever will.

Here, here I'll drink to that.  Please keep asking the hard questions Farrah. You're in good company here.

Thanks Room.

I have always tended to say it as I see it. I'm well aware that I come on strong in my opinions of people and their posts at times, but if they don't want my criticism then they'd be better off not posting bullshit and gibberish - simple really.  In any case my hard-hitting attitude toward quacks and charlatans is more than matched by the endless steam of naive and gullible lame-brains out there, that in their blissful ignorance are only too happy to treat them like lord and saviours! The best I can hope is that I'm somewhat redressing the balance of things. ;)

Now here's something to get the old grey cells firing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKqs5z2DrCk

Farrah
Nice to see you around!
I'll be inviting guests!!
Chet

Hope you can find your way across to here Mookie. And hope you don't mind but I've copied a page from EF just so we have a starting point.

Can I just say from the start that I personally have no interest whatsoever in the efficiency of the process at this stage, ie, overunity or not. No, my main focus is the science of the process, which in itself is absolutely intriguing.

QuoteSig
Yes I have lit the output gas without a lid on the cell and completely blew apart the (plastic) container.
I will never do that again. The "milky looking water "as you describe it, is made up of a huge amount
of oxygen/hydrogen bubbles that are miniscule in size as compared to the bubbles produced with
a cell running in normal conditions...the cell appears to be supersaturated with escaping bubbles,
and as fast as they leave the cell...they cant leave fast enough.

Lamere
I appreciate your observations, but the plate resonance is not acoustic and the ions do not move back and forth.
The movement occurs along the magnetic field lines. You can visibly see that, but not in the vid clip
..because of the poor quality resolution of the vid.

Seb
The electrodes are martensitic ss ..and must be so for obvious reasons.The accelerator itself is a monstrously powerful industrial AC/DC E-core electromagnet. The one in the vid has a pull strength of just under a half ton (963 lbs). Its operates at 7.5 amps at 120 volts AC. The variac transformer regulates 0-140 volts AC and is rated for 7.5 amps output and is required for 3 reasons. Firstly, to regulate the rate of acceleration, secondly to keep my glass test cells from smashing. I went thru a dozen glass jars because they simply cant handle an instant start-up at 120 volts. The magnetic force is too great. A regular properly-built (non glass) cell works just fine at instant full power. And thirdly, to watch the dynamics that visibly occur at different voltages. The amp draw of the cell is not at all affected at any time.. with or without the electromagnet. Yes 60hz is correct...but that has no bearing on the resonance of the plates. Resonance is caused by, and is dependant on, the strength of the electromagnet, which is driven by the current as more voltage is applied to it. That is why this is so simple....But for anyone unfamiliar with a voltage regulator, you can get away without one with a well-built cell.

.................................................. ..

Since this vid, I am using a much differently configured cell and electromagnet which is a bit more complicated,
but my very first one consisted of 2 ss screws in a Crazy Glue container with a small toriod AC electromagnet.
Anyone can make one of those.

But let me go on record ...I am not claiming anything ..I'm sharing it.
If no one finds it interesting ..I will quietly disappear..so fire away.

Mookie

I'd forgotten about your previous posts on EF regarding electromagnetic electrolysis, and indeed did not realise that this was the basis for what we are seeing in your videos until you replied with the above posts. I had assumed we were witnessing a purely mechanical action from your accelerator.

Okay, if we can just clear up a few things first.  That unit that sits next to the electrolyser is an industrial electromagnet, right?  Now, is it actually in contact with the glass jar of the electrolyser?  I ask this because, as I said, I was assuming the action I was observing to be the result of a mechanical action – physical vibrations.

From what you state above, I have a problem in this just being a magnetic effect rather than a mechanical one – especially if that electromagnet is in physical contact with the glass jar. Firstly, you would not expect the glass jars to break under a purely magnetic action, as obviously the magnetic field will pass straight through the glass with no effect on it's structure. Mechanical action though is a different matter.  Secondly, I would not expect to see the water vibrating from the magnetic field as, until ions are set in motion via an applied voltage, the magnetic effect would not initiate much in the way of movement.

The water molecule is dipolar and will align to an electric field, but it is not magnetic as such so will be influenced very little by a magnetic field. I assume too that your SS electrodes are low ferrous and hence strongly non-magnetic.

However, once a current is flowing through the cell, then this current will indeed be influenced by an external applied magnetic field.  Check out Fleming's right hand rule:

http://www.diracdelta.co.uk/science/source/f/l/flemings%20right%20hand%20rule/source.html

Whether this phenomenon is a result of magnetic interactions of the ionic current or physical vibrations, or both, one thing is very clear, that is, were only looking at very low frequencies. Actually, technically they would be described as superlow frequencies (or SLF)!

Now there was some mention somewhere of Fast Freddy, http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=384.0
converting his Pulse Width Modulator to apply unusually low frequencies, but he is yet to openly detail any specifics.  But it is certainly a possible correlation.    Also there is some obvious correlation between this and the Ohmasa electrolyser:

Though I'm very sceptical about some of the claims stated by both Ohmasa and the reporters, there is clearly similarities between the reactions of both yours and Ohmasa's electrolysers. You will note however that Ohmasa is employing SLF mechanical vibrations, with no mention of magnetic influences.

http://www.rexresearch.com/ohmasa/ohmasa.htm

The effect that is observed in your video is visually quite dramatic, and certainly no one can be under the illusion that the reaction is only minor. But what is happening at molecular level probably does not warrant idle speculation until further information is gathered and the process more fully understood.  

Great stuff, Mookie.

Copied from EF.

QuoteI run many boring, repetitive, systematic tests before reaching conclusions on most things.
After hundreds of hours, testing both with neos and with DC (pulsed and direct) electromagnets
I eliminated all possibilities (for myself) that they can create the resonating effect.
An alternating N/S electromagnet is required. Perhaps you can look up how they work for yourself
in that, although I have a good understanding, I am not the best person to explain it to you.

Keep in mind that it is the rigid plates themselves that you want to resonate.
The undulating waves that you see in the vid is caused by the electrode plates resonating back and forth. It is the resonating plates that cause the acceleration and the "avalanche effect"
I doubt that one can get only the plates themselves to resonate with a resonating tank.

Let me try to explain it differently ..hope this makes it less puzzling:

The more voltage applied to the electromagnet, the more current the electromagnet is able to draw,
meaning that the magnet becomes stronger, causing the plates to vibrate faster (at higher frequency)
..that's exactly what you see in the vid.

You would be best to go to the internet for a good description of how to wind an E-core electromagnet
as I do not build my own...or maybe you could post a new thread for someone else to help you with that.
There appear to be many people winding their own elsewhere in the forum.

Mookie

Trying to get better and clear insight into this phenomenon is quite difficult when I can't converse directly with you Mookie, but I hope to be starting a replication soon from the info I've gleaned. What I think will be important is determining whether this reaction is due to a magnetic effect or purely a mechanical action – and I strongly suspect the latter!

What I can say, is that though your plates are vibrating, I've seen nothing to suggest resonance as such is occurring. You have to understand that the term resonance is used to describe a system that oscillates at a much greater amplitude than usual at a specific – or specific - frequencies. You are operating at a set 50 - 60Hz, there is no frequency tuning at all, you are simply increasing the voltage to the electromagnet.  Increasing the voltage will NOT alter the frequency in which the plates are vibrating, it simply adds more energy and so makes the amplitude of the oscillations greater.

Most stainless steels are non-magnetic or only very slightly, this factor of course being determined by its make up. And likewise, as I stated previously, water is non-magnetic, hence the magnetism provided by your electromagnet should do nothing on its own from a purely magnetic angle. That is why I was curious to know whether or not the electrolyser is actually in physical contact with the electromagnet.

Once a current is flowing through the electrolyser, your cell plates will move in accordance with Flemings right hand rule and hence oscillate at 50 - 60Hz. It seems to me that it is these physical vibrations (albeit produced via the interaction of magnetic fields) that is creating the effect.

You are using the interaction of the cell's dc current magnetic field and the ac electromagnet field to cause the plates to vibrate, but if the goal is simply vibration of the plates, then I suggest that are multiple (and maybe far more efficient) ways of doing this. One thing for sure, even using your method, it will be possible to design far more efficient systems that considers the most favourable interaction of magnetic fields via the application of Fleming's right hand rule.

You will no doubt get all manner of theories and wild conjecture thrown up, people talking about all manner of exotic gas or gases, but at the end of the day science will be able to easily explain it.  As you've stated that the current draw from the electrolyser PSU does not go up, then this tends to suggest that there is no increase in ionisation of the water molecule.  

Now, just what exactly these vibrations are doing is not entirely clear, though from what I've gleaned, I'm prepared to go out on a limb here. Though I said it may be unwise to speculate on exactly what is occurring, given what I now know, I feel fairly confident that what we are witnessing is a cavitation effect - the very same cavitation that occurs on marine vessel propellers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation

There is absolutely nothing to suggest any that kind of electron avalanche is happening here, and I strongly feel that pursuing that avenue would be quite fruitless... at least I won't be taking that route. Cavitation though, is a different matter altogether. Cavitation is created when very low pressure areas are created within an fluid. Basically we would have the water vaporising within the liquid environment, and when the resulting microscopic vapour bubbles collapse, they can generate phenomenal pressures and temperatures - indeed extreme enough pressures and temperatures to fracture the water molecules.  When this happens so much energy is released that the water molecule does more than simply dissociate into ions, the O-H bonds break completely and cleanly and we can get hydrogen and oxygen forming as both monatomic and diatomic species and indeed also the creation of species such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).

This is really eye-opening stuff Mookie.  If I now look back at various experiments and claims of super-efficient electrolysers of the past, I can now see how cavitation may well have played a part – it was simply not realised at the time.

It will be particularly interesting to know if there are there even more effective frequencies to use.

Incidentally Mookie, are you using any kind of electrolyte?

Hi Farrah,

Would you mind copying the links from EF here as well? Thanks.

Is mookie using pulses to drive the plates?

.99

Farrah
You used the "C" word !,And I got goose bumps!!
Seening as how Cavitation Is one of the words that sends some of us OU types into a tizzy.

Geese.......................  Cavitation.
Girl does that make sence!!
Very Impressed!!
WoW!

Can you help Us do A replication Here??
If we build it He [Mookie} will come!!


Chet
Ps
I see that the questions for a replication are being asked now!!!
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6637-electrolysis-accelerator.html

Hi .99, you'll see that Chet has now provided the link to the thread on EF forum in the previous post.

It is a shame that Mookie himself has not yet found his way across to here, perhaps Chet will provide another link to here from the EF thread. That said, if the EF thread is anything to go by, it won't take long before useful conversation is swamped by a myriad of pointless posts and mindless questions.

To my mind, what Mookie has done is terrific in that it clearly shows what mechanical action on water can do.  I know Mookie talks of a electron avalanche effect in his video, but I'll go on record for saying that I believe this is an incorrect assumption - this is clearly not plasma electrolysis whereby electrons themselves can flow through liquid. And exactly where would these electrons be coming from as it is stated that the current through the PSU does not increase? No, by the virtue of applying just a little chemistry, I'll put money on electron avalanche theory being a non-starter here.

I'll be focussing all of my attention on cavitation. The beauty of cavitation is that no charge exchange mediums are necessary to produce gases because here, unlike standard electrolysis, ionisation is not the key as gases are a direct result of the intense microscopic reactions to temperature and pressure.

I'm confident that Fleming's right hand rule is the key to what Mookie is achieving in his set up, but there must surely be far better ways of incorporating this into a cell in order to make for a far more power efficient design than using a power hungry electromagnet. Nevertheless, the important thing here is that Mookie has demonstrated a fully working model and as such power consumption at this stage is of no great concern.

With my own ideas of what is occurring, I'll now go about implementing something similar in a cell of my own, looking firstly to duplicate the effect, before then looking at ways to improve efficiency and/or enhance the effect.

I'll be starting a new thread on my workbench, specifically for this purpose.  Hope you join up Mookie.

NB. For anyone just looking in, I should add that you will need to be a registered forum member to access my workbench threads, as visitors do not have access to this particular facility.

Farrah
I already posted one direct link to this thread!
Energetic has a "no Spam Bot" built in, once you post a link No more linking allowed!
Unless I link to an EF thread [yours] which I have done several times![that thread has a link to here]
If Mookie wants to come here ,He knows where you are! [well they all do now]

Chet

Farrah,
I would imagine you have already thought of this, but would an ultrasonic transducer work to produce the cavitation in the water (think ultra sonic humidifier).  The frequency may be too high but it can be varied electronically and would be much more efficient.  Seems to me I have allready read about people using ultrasonics in electrolysis? Just an idea.

Hi Room

Yes I have considered this. But as far as I'm aware, ultrasonic transducers mist water, that is they atomise water rather than creating the cavitation effect necessary to fracture the water molecule completely in order to evolve the component gases. But I do intend to play with frequencies once I initially duplicate the effect. To get cavitation occurring it may involve setting up a standing wave that provides constant areas of compression and rarefaction, but there are still a lot of questions to be answered and a great deal of experimenting to be done.  If you look carefully at Mookies Vid when he is powering the electromagnet, but not the electrolyser, it does look like standing waves are being generated in the water.

Very exciting times... I think Mookies made my Christmas! Blimey... how sad am I? :-[

Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.11.01, 16:25:17
Farrah,
I would imagine you have already thought of this, but would an ultrasonic transducer work to produce the cavitation in the water (think ultra sonic humidifier).  The frequency may be too high but it can be varied electronically and would be much more efficient.  Seems to me I have allready read about people using ultrasonics in electrolysis? Just an idea.

Room, having looked into this further, I see that ultrasonic cavitation is actually quite well documented and is indeed commonly used as an intensive cleaning process. I see frequencies of 20Khz and upwards quoted, but nothing to suggest any cavitation cleaning processes that use SLF or acoustic frequencies.  However, surely any frequency is capable of mechanically oscillating a medium and so would produce compression and rarefaction in gas or liquid, thereby developing some cavitation. It may simply come down to efficiency as you suggest.

Anyone reading this thread might be interested to know that I'm continuing this research on my workbench: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=387.msg7700#new

December 2010

The limitations of standard Faraday Electrolysis should be quite obvious to anyone and everyone that has taken the trouble to read and understand Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis. After all, they couldn't be much simpler.  The amount of gases evolved under standard Faraday Electrolysis, is - and will always be - governed by the current through the cell/electrolyser.  Even if we keep the voltage to the realistic optimum of around 2 volts per cell to initiate and maintain electrolysis, then we are still always limited by the current that can be drawn through the cell at this voltage. With the power dissipated equal to, P = V x I, or P = 2V x I, even at just two volts the high current required produces lots of wasted energy in the form of heat. Under these conditions, the current needed to produce enough gas to run an ICE becomes enormous, and indeed impossible to provide continuously via an on-demand vehicle system. 

To electrolyse 1 litre of water (under ideal conditions of around 1.3 volts and 100% efficiency) requires 3.658kW of power per hour. Which, at 1.3 volts, equates to 2814 amps!  This would provide 2038 litres of oxyhydrogen.

Now if you check out this link you will see where the problems lie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qzrI20VPCw

This emphasises the very real limitations of so-called brute force, Faraday Electrolysis.

So, is there another way?

Well, it has been proven that for the same amount of power, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis produces more combustible gases than Faraday Electrolysis. I say, 'combustible gases', because the high temperatures created by plasma discharges do not just involve the creation of radical species H+ and OH-, but also OH2 and O, reacting to form not only hydrogen and oxygen, but also highly combustible hydrogen peroxide H2O2.

If you are aware of the work done by Dave Lawton, who was himself active on forums a few years back, you will know that he claimed to be achieving 3 – 4 times more gas evolution from his Meyer-like electrolyser than Faraday's Electrolysis Laws state was possible. Of course Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis were not at fault and still completely valid, so there had to be something else happening too.  Back then there was much theorising, much controversy, and of course much wild speculation. But now, a few years on, things look a little different and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit nicely to show us glimpses of the big picture.

One thing that was a feature of Dave Lawton's electrolyser design was that the tubular electrodes were 'conditioned'.  Conditioning is a term that is banded about quite a lot. For a long time it was considered a mysterious process, creating much speculation and debate, and indeed seen by some as a bit of a dark art. The problem was, that no one really knew what it was all about - how or why it apparently increased efficiency of the electrolyser - or indeed if it served any real purpose at all.

Further complications arise from the fact there seems to be two types of conditioning of the electrodes, or rather two interpretations.  The first is that running an electrolyser at a low current for a few hours, allows iron in the surface of the electrodes to 'leach' out.  That is, any microscopic areas of iron on the surface of the stainless steel electrodes, under working conditions will react with the oxygen being created to form rust.  Now obviously if we are losing oxygen to the iron to form an oxide, then we evolve less oxygen as a gas, so certainly this will be seen as a reduction in gas output.  When this iron reacts to form rust it usually leaves the surface of the SS electrodes to become a precipitate in the solution, and the chromium in the SS quickly acts to form a protective oxide coating. Once all the microscopic iron has been reacted, the chromium oxide coating on the SS surface does its job and prevents further reaction.  So this form of condition makes sense and indeed is good practice.

However, Dave Lawton's electrode conditioning goes a step further.  By using hard water (that is water high in minerals) or indeed doping water with minerals, he built up a visible mineral coating, which consisted mainly of calcium carbonate, or scale.  Water that is filtered through limestone is very mineral rich and ideal for producing this coating.  But what does it do?

Well at the time, as I mentioned above, it was a mystery.  But not so now.

Dave Lawton claimed that his cells appeared to glow slightly in the dark, producing some kind of luminescence.  At the time, though interesting, not too much was made of this and little investigation or indeed real consideration was given to this phenomenon.

The interesting thing about this mineral coating was that, although it did not conduct electricity, having a non-measurable resistance on a digital multimeter and so effectively a great insulator, it was actually very porous.

What I know now, that no one realised at the time was that the luminescence was due to microscopic PLASMA DISCHARGES within the microscopic cavities of this porous mineral coating. And any apparent over-Faraday results were likely due to this phenomenon.

Now, CAVITATION produces similar results to plasma discharges in water due to the high temperatures and pressures created on a microscopic level but, unlike plasma discharges which are created by high currents, cavitation is induced mechanically by physical vibration.

So here's the thing. Why not introduce all these elements into an electrolyser in order to – if possible – increase overall efficiency.

So here's my idea: The Hybrid Electrolyser

An electrolyser that uses elements of Faraday Electrolysis, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis and Cavitation.

I'm currently designing and fabricating, but the current freezing cold spell is hampering me somewhat. However, I've attached a couple of my initial designs in order that you can see where I'm going with this.

I'm not yet at the testing stage though I have sourced most of the materials and have commenced fabrication. I fear the testing stage will have to wait a while as an unheated greenhouse in below freezing temperatures is really no fun to work in.

Anyway, I've attached a depiction of my latest cell design, which is intended to dissociate water into its component elements by multiple means. That is, my H-Cell is intended to incorporate aspects of standard Faraday Electrolysis, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis and indeed Cavitation.

I have done away with the electromagnet of the first design and instead have employed a strong neodymium magnet and a coil.  The neo is glued into place in the hollow centre SS tube (anode), while the coil is wrapped around the outer SS tube (cathode).  I'm gambling on the interacting magnetic fields of the neo and the coil (when fed high current pulses) will create the required mechanical movement between the two electrodes to induce cavitation.

I will also be conditioning the tubes over a period of time beforehand, using a steady DC in order to leach out as much iron near the surface of the SS tubes as possible. I will then dope the water with calcium carbonate to get the desired mineral build up required for the creation of Plasma Discharges once the cell is up and running on pulsed DC.

If, as I suspect, various electrolyser incarnations of the past have exhibited more than one form of water dissociation - perhaps more by luck than design - then I now need to look closer at cell construction.

It has occurred to me that if I want two tubes of a cell to oscillate, then how these tubes are fixed, both within the electrolyser as a whole and in respect to each other will be important.  When using tube electrodes in the past, I have used the inert rubber bungs from laboratory test tubes, cutting pieces off to wedge between inner and outer electrodes.  The sole purpose of which was to simply space the electrodes and hold them firmly in place to prevent them coming into contact with each other.  However, this method would not seem to be conducive to creating a mechanical oscillation between the two electrodes, and may well have been restricting me to standard Faraday Electrolysis.  So, now I'm carefully gluing the cells in place at the base, so that this is the only clamping point. This way the cell can oscillate far more easily, and it makes sense that the higher up the cells, the greater any mechanical movement will become – and hence longer cells may be more effective than shorter cells. I'm still considering employing a thin rubber 'O' ring near the top of the inner tube just to prevent the inner and outer tubes contacting should oscillations become too pronounced and weaken the glue at the bottom. But this is a very minor concern and a trivial point that may not even come into play.

Many people confuse resonance with simple oscillations.  The fact that the two tubes may oscillate does not mean that they are at resonance, though resonance will be what I'm ultimately looking to achieve.  As many of you know, when something resonates at its natural frequency, then it requires far less energy to maintain the oscillations than it does at any other frequency, and indeed at resonance the amplitude of the oscillations will greatly increase unless input energy is drastically reduced.  Oscillating the cells in resonance to the point of destruction has occurred to me as being a possibility, so I'll be monitoring things very carefully in order to avoid this unpleasant scenario... but I'm probably getting a little ahead of myself.  

So ideally, pulsing the DC at an appropriate frequency will see the tubes oscillate to induce cavitation for minimal energy input.  I'm also wondering would I want both the inner and outer tubes to oscillate in time with each other - would tuning both the inner and outer tubes be advantageous... or not?  I'm rather inclined to think 'not'. If they were both tuned to the same frequency, and if they moved in phase with each other and at the same amplitude, then the overall sum of their relative movement and indeed that of the electrolyte between the tubes would be zero.  To my mind, the last thing I want is the tubes oscillating in phase and cancelling each other out.

Of course, all the time, standard Faraday Electrolysis will be evident, and again 'hopefully', there may also be some evidence of Plasma Discharges taking place if the insulating mineral deposit allows for the creation of high voltages within and around microcavities. I'm tempted to say, 'three reactions for the price of one', but no doubt there will be costs. It remains to be seen then just how effective and  - if effective - just how efficient all this turns out to be... or even if it works at all!

Even if the electrodes are induced to oscillate, yet cavitation is not evident, it may still prove to be more efficient due to the evolving gas bubbles being 'shook' off the electrodes.

I'm trying to detail everything as clearly as I possibly can in order that anyone wanting to replicate – or indeed simply following my work -  is armed with all the necessary details and information.

I've only just found out that we've lost Rustum Roy, the scientist that was an expert in the field of water and indeed the guy who was following up on John Kanzuis's discovery. He passed away in the summer:  :'(

http://www.rustumroy.com/

For anyone that has not seen the paper, here it is.  

http://www.rustumroy.com/Scans/Observations%20of%20polarized%20MRI%20vol%2012%20is%201.pdf

This following paper is new to me, but equally interesting:

http://www.mri.psu.edu/faculty/rroy/media/Publications/Surprising.pdf

:)

Dearest Farrah,

The university of Birmingham, UK, is doing that study with ultrasonics as well.  They have a couple of our systems and will be integrating the USonic into it....but the caco3 has a significant interest for us....we tested a group of cells, flow through, with a caco3 solution.  The resultant gas was obviously not very effective in the F150 petrol version,...but after we flush the solution and replaced it with KOH, 28%, the volume of gas for the 2 cells went from 12 lpm to 18 lpm for the same amperage and voltage.  At that point we didn,t put  the "connection" together....I will perform a followup on precise Numbers ...with the conditioning using caco3 v/s not.

Sorry not able to get back to posting...very busy with this business end of this science..

With a look to the future,

Best regards,

Bob Potchen


PS, merry Christmas :)

Good to hear from you Bob, hope things are going well for you. It's been a good while since I've heard from you.

You're probably one of the few people with the resources to have comprehensive testing undertaken, while the rest of us can only theorise on what is occurring. With this in mind your input is always very welcome indeed.

Keep in touch Bob.

A very Merry Christmas to you and the family.  :)

Quote from: The Cell / Bob Potchen on 2010.12.21, 04:20:05
They have a couple of our systems and will be integrating the USonic into it....but the caco3 has a significant interest for us....we tested a group of cells, flow through, with a caco3 solution.  The resultant gas was obviously not very effective in the F150 petrol version,...but after we flush the solution and replaced it with KOH, 28%, the volume of gas for the 2 cells went from 12 lpm to 18 lpm for the same amperage and voltage.  At that point we did,t put  the "connection" together....I will perform a followup on precise Numbers ...with the conditioning using caco3 v/s not.

Just to add another two-penneth Bob.

I too only use the Calcium Carbonate to initially build up the mineral content on the electrodes and once I'm where I want to be with it, I also change the solution for water with an electrolyte.  I don't think the Calcium Carbonate actually breaks up and ionises in the water (or if it does it's only a very low percentage) because I have never found the current through the cell to rise when I'm doping my solution with this compound.  So, it's not an electrolytic compound and indeed it seems to me that the Calcium Carbonate is simply suspended as tiny particles within the solution. Obviously there is a reason why it is attracted to the cathodes, but I'm not exactly sure why, or indeed what reaction - if any - is occurring. I say, 'if any' because it does rather seem to simply be the mineral being attracted and depositing itself on the electrodes rather than reacting with them.

Look forward to getting some concrete results and hopefully answers to some of the more elusive questions in the New Year.  O0

Dear Farrah,

One note...I pulled up our testing notes on CACO3 and saw that the cell we had used for testing had already been used with KOH for aprox 3 months, prior to the addition of the CACO3....so in fairness and accuracy, I will retest with brand new cells and publish the results....It will unfortunately not take place until after Christmas, as I am traveling with my loving wife and children...OH and by the way just missed your lovely snow...we left the day before from London :o.

Now that I don't get banned or censored here, I look forward to continuing our dance....

Best regards,
Bob Potchen

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.12.21, 13:06:08
...

I don't think the Calcium Carbonate actually breaks up and ionises in the water (or if it does it's only a very low percentage) because I have never found the current through the cell to rise when I'm doping my solution with this compound.  So, it's not an electrolytic compound and indeed it seems to me that the Calcium Carbonate is simply suspended as tiny particles within the solution. Obviously there is a reason why it is attracted to the cathodes, but I'm not exactly sure why, or indeed what reaction - if any - is occurring. I say, 'if any' because it does rather seem to simply be the mineral being attracted and depositing itself on the electrodes rather than reacting with them.
...

If the "mineral" is being attracted to the Cathode (Negative
Electrode) it would seem to be somewhat akin to what
happens in an electroplating bath.

But, since Calcium isn't capable of "plating" it becomes a
mystery.

Oxides are formed at the Anode (Positive Electrode) which
take on a "mineral" appearance when stainless steel is
used.

Yes, we do look forward to the results you obtain.  Once
the surface deposits are formed many have reported a
very dramatic increase in the efficiency of the cell.

One must wonder whether some sort of "transmutation"
is taking place...

Quote from: Dumped on 2010.12.22, 21:00:09
If the "mineral" is being attracted to the Cathode (Negative
Electrode) it would seem to be somewhat akin to what
happens in an electroplating bath.

But, since Calcium isn't capable of "plating" it becomes a
mystery.

Oxides are formed at the Anode (Positive Electrode) which
take on a "mineral" appearance when stainless steel is
used.

Yes, we do look forward to the results you obtain.  Once
the surface deposits are formed many have reported a
very dramatic increase in the efficiency of the cell.

One must wonder whether some sort of "transmutation"
is taking place...

It's effectively just limescale, and this builds up over time in any plumbing or heating system that uses 'hard' mineral rich water.  We see this in our kettles and around the spouts of taps, in the toilet cisterns, etc.  The minerals are more likely to come out of suspension and deposit themselves forming a crust when heated, but even unheated water deposits these minerals in time. Obviously electroplating involves chemical reactions that alter chemical compositions and form new elements and compounds, but I'm not sure that's what we are seeing with this mineral build up.

Why it builds up so readily on the cathode is the mystery to me as it does appear to be attracted and deposited, but with no obvious chemical reaction occurring, while the anode remains clean.  In my experience there is no obvious mineral build-up on the anode.

One thing I have not yet tried is reversing the polaraties of the electrodes in order to produce a mineral build up on both.  It may be that the minerals drop off what was formerly the cathode when it is swapped to be an anode, but I'm yet to experiment with this.

Farrah,

Have you seen this?



There is a German OU page with a few pictures here (http://www.overunity.de/index.php?topic=872.msg15504#msg15504).

Stefan started this at OU here (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10156.msg268022#new).

Looks promising, but I'd like to see a proper load used, and longer testing.

.99

I'd be interested in the Anton cell construction, and how much he is charging to buy one. Further to that, I wonder if they are claiming to have exceeded Faraday's LPM rate?

.99

(http://www.overunity.de/index.php?PHPSESSID=792ec0ef8a4e6b192298a2a0f028866f&action=dlattach;topic=872.0;attach=2148;image)

Appears these two guys, Oliver and Valention, have been experimenting with quite a variety of water cells. Nice work.

.99

Poynt,
There will be lots of folks coming to this party [Topic]!

Absolutely amazing!!
AMAZING!!!

Chet

There's now some talk and speculation as to the authenticity of this unit.

???

I guess time may tell.

.99

.99, the term they use for this type of electrolyser is a 'Dry Cell', and though they appear to be more efficient than standard electrolysers, none are 100% efficient. 

Until independent verification by a recognised authority in which all relevant tests are conducted, this is just another Fast Freddy fiasco.   And when I say 'independent verification by a recognised authority', I don't mean Hartmann having a quick nose around, and saying, 'Ya, it is goood!' Let's face he is yet to notice (banned) ISTs reappearance on his own forum... as incredibly cunning as his new identity is!  ::) 

Chet, why oh why do you always fall for this stuff and get so prematurely excited? Trust me, I wouldn't get ordering your new party frock yet.

Farrah,
Its an assumption problem on my part,I always assume fearless leader [A.K.A. Hartman],has done his homework!

And yes ,I know the Ass-u-me part!

It would seem these two would have to be lying outright or they are onto something unusual  here?
As poynt said "time will tell",although I have not seen your analysis be wrong yet!

Chet
PS on the OU banning thing ,If william behaves and no one complains ,no problems!

I am quite sure anyone here that has been banned at OU would get the same treatment by Stefan!
Which I think is cool! [2nd chance and all]


 

Boy Oh Boy ,The boss is really going for it on this one!!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ5DCzBry5A

Chet

looks like the anton cell

How hard would it be to do a run with real petrol, choreograph it and use that soundtrack for an identical run for what we see in the video. All the sound changes would be in sync with some careful editing.

The engine wouldn't even have to be running in the second version. Strange that the light went out early in the video.

Just wondering? Have I become too skeptical?

yeah i haven't thought about using a seperate soundtrack.

As far as i can see there is still a battery and that battery can drive the generator and the motorbike type 12 volt lamp.
He only has to loosen the spark plug so the piston pressure drops.

Time will tell  :)

Quote from: ramset on 2010.12.24, 00:18:12
PS on the OU banning thing ,If william behaves and no one complains ,no problems!

We all know this will never happen, he is an instinctive, compulsive idiot who has never brought anything but confusion and disruption to the table! The fact that Hartmann doesn't immediately ban any new incarnation of him is what puzzles me. And, Christmas or not, personally I think he should be locked up and heavily sedated for the good of all mankind.

Quote from: ION on 2010.12.24, 02:34:42
Just wondering? Have I become too skeptical?

Of course not ION, hang on to your healthy dose of sceptiscm.

This would after all be a perpeptual motion machine if the claims are true, so the implications quite Earth-shattering.  Given that it really would (like FF's claims) be a world-changing event, then it is quite logical to expect this more likely to be a hoax than the real thing - something that Chet continually fails to realise before he comes over all over-excited.  :D

I fully expect, just like the Fast Freddy saga, that this will never get independent verification by a qualified authority. Is Hartmann really gullible enough to fall for this?  :o

Merry Christmas  :)

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.12.24, 10:03:05
We all know this will never happen, he is an instinctive, compulsive idiot who has never brought anything but confusion and disruption to the table! The fact that Hartmann doesn't immediately ban any new incarnation of him is what puzzles me. And, Christmas or not, personally I think he should be locked up and heavily sedated for the good of all mankind.

Of course not ION, hang on to your healthy dose of sceptiscm.

This would after all be a perpeptual motion machine if the claims are true, so the implications quite Earth-shattering.  Given that it really would (like FF's claims) be a world-changing event, then it is quite logical to expect this more likely to be a hoax than the real thing - something that Chet continually fails to realise before he comes over all over-excited.  :D

I fully expect, just like the Fast Freddy saga, that this will never get independent verification by a qualified authority. Is Hartmann really gullible enough to fall for this?  :o

Merry Christmas  :)

Hartmann will never ban the likes of William. He'll take all the Williams he can get. It is extremely good for the hit meter on his site, and you can live off the advertising if the hits are high enough. It should not puzzle you.

What puzzles me is the following William gets without ever having demonstrated anything of value. He takes discarded cable spools, mounts some capacitors to it and everyone goes ooh! aah! They suck it up like mutant cockroaches on a creosote dump. I lack the required low ethical standard or I could have them eating out of my hand.

As for my skepticism statement, that was meant to be "tongue in cheek". Trust me on this: I wasn't born yesterday. O0

Happy (politically correct) Holidays :)

Farrah
Would you like to put a Holiday greeting at energetic [your thread]?
Of course with a link to here!
Chet
PS
Farrah,could you comment on this? I'm confused about the magnet mending comment! [sounds ferrous]
And Steve's answer to my question below.

Hi Yaro,

Here is some comments of Mookie on your replication. He asked me to give it to you:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using circular pizza cutter disks is certainly creative but probably the least desirable shape
to use as plates in terms of creating resonance between them with a flat magnet face.
With a round disk, there is only a tiny portion of plate area close to the flat face of the magnet
able to be affected by the magnetic field. As you  know from your own experience,
in order for a magnetic field to have the greatest effect, its necessary to have
as much plate "edge" at the magnet face as possible.
..as is the case for any magnet.

As for the rather large 3/8 gap between the plates and the magnet face,
that is quite a lot, and will further lessen the affect of the magnetic field on the plates.

I'm quite familiar with the particular electromagnet in his video clip.
At 70 volts I'm quite certain that it is drawing 6.6 amps and not 0.66.
(his ammeter dial was probably just set at the wrong point)

The plate configuration, and placement, in his replication vid just need a few small changes,
but even with his present set up I'm glad he is able to see some accelerating effect.
He's not far off from being able to duplicate the acceleration in my original clip.
Half a dozen cheap magnetic mending plates from a local hardware store
would get him where he wants to be.

I hope he continues..because his thinking on the electrolysis process will change
when he succeeds with true acceleration, and sees it for himself for the first time.
I'm looking forward to that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


regards
Steve

Quote from: Chet on December 22, 2010, 21:56:40 pm
Steve,
What are these?

"Half a dozen cheap magnetic mending plates"
I googled it, and it was inconclusive [brass .ferrous ,zinc ,etc]?

Thank you
Chet

He means that its better to use a material which reacts on a magnetic field.....

regards
Steve

Quote from: ION on 2010.12.24, 10:59:08As for my skepticism statement, that was meant to be "tongue in cheek". Trust me on this: I wasn't born yesterday. O0

lol. I never thought for a moment you were ION, but it is clear by the following IST had/has on Hartmanns forum that many people really do appear to have been born yesterday.. if not the day before! ;)

I too never cease to be amazed by the sheer volume of gullible and/or mindless idiots that soak up so much nonsense without a second thought. But as you say they keep the numbers ticking over and if you're relying on advertising for your Christmas bonus, then I guess it's open season for all.

Quote"Half a dozen cheap magnetic mending plates"

Haven't got a clue what he is talking about, never heard of a 'mending' plate, magnetic or otherwise... until now that is:

http://www.stanleyhardware.com/default.asp?TYPE=CATEGORY&CATEGORY=HDW+MENDING+PLATE 

So..........
Mookie is telling Yaro that he will like what he see's when he switches to ferrous plates [Zinc?]
Something magnetic ,that reacts with the magnetic field.

Seems wierd?
Won't that just make a big stew?

Chet

No, I assume he's telling him to us magnetic stainless steel mending plates, ie ss that has a higher ferrous content.

@FarrahDay

QuoteWhat puzzles me is the following William gets without ever having demonstrated anything of value. He takes discarded cable spools, mounts some capacitors to it and everyone goes ooh! aah! They suck it up like mutant cockroaches on a creosote dump. I lack the required low ethical standard or I could have them eating out of my hand.

We all know this will never happen, he is an instinctive, compulsive idiot who has never brought anything but confusion and disruption to the table! The fact that Hartmann doesn't immediately ban any new incarnation of him is what puzzles me. And, Christmas or not, personally I think he should be locked up and heavily sedated for the good of all mankind.

I find your attitude a little disturbing, can you imagine where we would be if everyone you personally considered as different or crazy was locked away and sedated? What of Vincent van Gogh, Ludwig van Beethoven , Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla? would you have had them locked away and sedated as well? You see the problem here is that when you look through history you will find the only people who ever really accomplished anything great were considered as "crackpots" or "crazy" which does not say much for the persons we consider as "normal". I am not saying William is crazy or that he has or will accomplish anything, I am just saying I find your logic flawed and your egotistical attitude repulsive to say the least.
As well by the tone of your last posts one has to wonder if you consider everyone here as mindless idiots or mutant cockroaches on a creosote dump as well, or does this just apply to anyone who does not agree with you?
Regards
AC

AC,

You have used parts of both ION's and Farrah's posts in your above quote (ION 1st para, Farrah 2nd para).

To whom are you addressing your post?

.99

@Poynt99

QuoteYou have used parts of both ION's and Farrah's posts in your above quote (ION 1st para, Farrah 2nd para).
To whom are you addressing your post?

At both I guess, lol
Im not sure why so many people have to degrade others to make themselves feel superior when the facts we have would seem to suggest they have accomplished no more than anyone else. Image that, all the people who have told us they have years of education and experience have accomlished no more than anyone else in this field of technology and yet they speak of "proof" and degrade others as if they have actually done something of substance. I get really tired of hearing all their self-rightious BS as this should not be a matter of "us" and "them" but "we", we should be working together to find answers without having to resort to degrading and ridiculing others to make our point. I do not think this is a sign or superiority nor intelligence but a lack of it in my opinion.
Regards
AC

Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.12.24, 15:46:08
@FarrahDay
I find your attitude a little disturbing, can you imagine where we would be if everyone you personally considered as different or crazy was locked away and sedated? What of Vincent van Gogh, Ludwig van Beethoven , Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla? would you have had them locked away and sedated as well? You see the problem here is that when you look through history you will find the only people who ever really accomplished anything great were considered as "crackpots" or "crazy" which does not say much for the persons we consider as "normal". I am not saying William is crazy or that he has or will accomplish anything, I am just saying I find your logic flawed and your egotistical attitude repulsive to say the least.
As well by the tone of your last posts one has to wonder if you consider everyone here as mindless idiots or mutant cockroaches on a creosote dump as well, or does this just apply to anyone who does not agree with you?
Regards
AC

Thank you for your compliments.

Actually to refute your last part (underlined) of the post first, I consider almost everyone here to be above average intelligence, and I highly respect most of the posts and people who post here. You have attempted a cheap psychological ploy to get others into your camp by alluding to something that you are musing about, not something I have said or inferred. I was specifically referring to the members of OU that post their supplications to William on the Osiris thread.

Second, your analogies are not what I would call "spot on". Not all crazies  or different people are a benefit to society. Would you have us believe that all are by cherry picking a few names to build your hypothesis? In that case, I think you left out a few names (mass murderers etc.). Not all of the highly different people have benefited society.

Sorry that you find my attitude disturbing, egotistical, and repulsive.......

Farrah
Well they don't make stainless magnetic mending plates!
I guess thats something I'll ask Steve to verify with Mookie?

Thanks
Chet
PS
Please have a Very happy holiday!!
All the best to you and yours!

Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.12.24, 16:56:01
@Poynt99
Im not sure why so many people have to degrade others to make themselves feel superior when the facts we have would seem to suggest they have accomplished no more than anyone else.

Each to his or her own AC.  To be honest I find the fact that you are taking this so seriously a little disturbing!

It's all very well being politically correct, but I'm afraid it's just not for me. I tend to say it as I see it rather than waste words pussy-footing around in order to avoid hurt feelings.  We are talking about the same person here aren't we? We're not talking about an eccentric genius here... at least I'm not.

The fact that I think IST is a mindless idiot and say so, is just down to free thinking and free speech.  I don't think that I'm exactly thinking outside of the box here! Nothing I say in anyway degrades him, he does a superb job of that all by himself.  Perhaps you would feel differently if the muppet had continually disrupted your threads with his pointless nonsense, posting garbage after garbage at the expense of intelligent conversation? Or are you like the politicians that call for leniency on the nutters out there... until that is, one of them attacks their own family?  

IST is probably the most pointless, disruptive and - at least to my mind - most insane individual I have ever come across on any forum (though there have been a few close running contenders for the title).  I do him no injustice by calling him a mindless idiot because he has made it plain and clear to everyone for years and in countless posts that this is exactly what he is!

So, AC, feel free to be disturbed by my comments... I won't be losing any sleep over them. If you want to be his buddy, then that's your call, and if you want to work with IST on, say, his teleporter, then I'm sure he'd welcome you with open arms - you could hold his magnets for him! O0

A summary:

1) The ANTON cell is nothing too special, and it is an open source design. Still not sure where, how, or from whom one can purchase one.

2) 800 to 900 Watts of input power is required to generate enough HHO from the ANTON cell to operate the generator. Apparently, the generator's ICE consumes about 6 LPM.

3) The generator has a 1000W output capacity.

4) How/where is there enough "gain" in the system to both run the generator and power a 400W load, especially in light of the inefficiency of the generator and it's ICE engine?

5) It would seem that any "gain" would show up as a marked decrease in the required input power, either due to an overunity electrolysis cell, and/or overunity HHO combustion process due to the custom ignition system. Yet the input power required for the 6 LPM does align well with the expected HHO production.

6) So where is all this gain?

7) One possibility allowing for less apparent gain, is that the 400W bulb is only receiving 100 to 200 Watts of power, not 400W. However, even if the ICE and generator were 100% efficient, there still has to be a slight gain in the HHO production.

8] This would still be a huge achievement if it turns out to be authentic. Perhaps the key is indeed in the ignition, since that seems to be the only place a significant modification has been done.

.99

@FarrahDay

QuoteEach to his or her own AC.  To be honest I find the fact that you are taking this so seriously a little disturbing!

LOL, I think the only thing you find disturbing is that I had the audacity to question some supposed authority you have imparted upon yourself.

QuoteIt's all very well being politically correct, but I'm afraid it's just not for me. I tend to say it as I see it rather than waste words pussy-footing around in order to avoid hurt feelings.  We are talking about the same person here aren't we? We're not talking about an eccentric genius here... at least I'm not.

I would agree you tend to say it as you see it but that is not what you do, you make statements of an opinion as in they were irrefutable facts then when confronted start inserting terms such as "I think" and "probably" to diffuse the issue.

QuoteIST is probably the most pointless, disruptive and - at least to my mind - most insane individual I have ever come across on any forum (though there have been a few close running contenders for the title).  I do him no injustice by calling him a mindless idiot because he has made it plain and clear to everyone for years and in countless posts that this is exactly what he is!

I think you started this statement well enough but again reverted to the habit of making false statements not as opinion but as fact, in fact it is not plain and clear to "everyone" that Ist is a mindless idot which should be obvious. Maybe we should start dealing with actual facts and not opinions stated as facts, to my knowledge Milehigh was the first person with enough intelligence to recognize the fact that William talks quite normal in his video's dispite his posts in the forums. In fact I have met William in person and found him to be a nice person who is quite normal and intelligent and that his posts are little more than a form of role playing (Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behavior to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role). Which leads to a question that just begs to be asked in this situation-- What exactly are you basing all your supposed "facts" on Farrah? as well we could ask the simple question concerning why William feels the need to role-play in the forums. Could it be that he role-plays so that his every word is not constantly attacked by a bunch of self-rightious baffoons who hide behind the label of a "Critic" as an excuse to degrade and belittle others, do you think that may be it Farrah? I cannot speak for anyone else but I have found free energy technologies to be like people in that there is always something hidden behind the facade they present to everyone and that understanding what lies beneath is a journey well worth the effort.

QuoteSo, AC, feel free to be disturbed by my comments... I won't be losing any sleep over them. If you want to be his buddy, then that's your call, and if you want to work with IST on, say, his teleporter, then I'm sure he'd welcome you with open arms - you could hold his magnets for him!

LOL, nice jab,however if I had to make the choice between yourself or William inventing an actual transporter I would say the odds are in Williams favour simply because of his incredible amount of creativity and determination but then again I do not know you and may be wrong.

Regards
AC

AC,
I have seen William drive people to madness ,in threads that he made no contributions to ,other than his "role" he plays!
Farrah did seem to be singled out for the "treatment"
And he is still doing this on threads at Ou ,places where newcomers are trying to have serious conversation
And just closing down the threads as a result of Williams "role playing".

There are always two sides to a story ,and while I may have much more tolerance for shenanigans as a result of my lifes experience [with the handicapped].
I suspect it can be most taxing to an individual[Farrah] that is devoting their spare time and resources to openly working and openly sharing this with the rest of us Open source!

While William Holds his cards close to his chest and glares and taunts ,although he is trying to share something lately?

Chet

This thread that binds us together ,gets stretched a little tight sometimes ,but making this world a better place then we found it "is still the tie that binds"
Happy Holiday to You and yours!

@ramset

QuoteI have seen William drive people to madness ,in threads that he made no contributions to ,other than his "role" he plays!
Farrah did seem to be singled out for the "treatment"
And he is still doing this on threads at Ou ,places where newcomers are trying to have serious conversation
And just closing down the threads as a result of Williams "role playing".
There are always two sides to a story ,and while I may have much more tolerance for shenanigans as a result of my lifes experience [with the handicapped].
I suspect it can be most taxing to an individual that is devoting their spare time and resources to openly working and openly sharing this with the rest of us Open source!

I would agree William has a way with people, lol, and has driven many to maddness but if we are going to start pointing fingers I can name just as many critics who have shut down just as many threads by doing the same thing William has. Both jump into a thread and try to promote their opinions as irrefutable facts and feel compelled to make their point over and over and over. As well some have said that I belong to one "camp" or side of the issue but I do not think this is the case, I am in the middle and think both sides have lost their marbles, lol. I understand I do tend to criticize the critics more often than not but more often than not they will drag personal issues and insults into the mix and I find this offensive and have little tolerance for that kind of behavior.
As well it may not be common knowledge but I would disagree with William on most theoretical and technical issues but does not give me nor anyone else the right to insult him personally it simply means we disagree, our disagreement is one of the reasons I like reading his posts so much. Can you imagine where we would be if all of us thought the same and always agreed with one another? I think this is the real heart of the issue where one party feels compelled to force their opinions on others as if they were fact, I think it has very little to do with the facts and relates more to dominance over others. I find it rather comical that so many people on both sides would take such a special interest in me and feel so compelled to tell me how it is and why they could not possibly be wrong in their opinions, lol, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside not unlike a good shot of rye whiskey. I guess at the end of the day the person with a working free energy device will be the one who is right and all other opinions will be simply that---opinions.
I think my new years resolution will be to try to be that person and leave the squabbling to others even if it is a great way to hone my debating skills, also to stay on topic -- sorry poynt99.
Regards and best wishes to all in the new year
AC

On the Topic Note
From Helmut at OU
A firm believer in these two fellows!

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvSbJ9mG4Tk

Helmut

p.s.  here is a better link    
http://www.youtube.com/user/banditforfreedom

Whenever people interact with people some sort of
"conflict" or "misunderstanding" will inevitably arise.

We must learn to be "smarter" in how we are tempted
to respond to comments which seem to "push our
emotional buttons."

First (http://www.contentious.com/2005/01/26/handling-online-vermin/)

Second (http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/)

Third (http://www.dailyblogtips.com/7-tips-for-handling-flamers-and-trolls/)

As less than perfect models of human(e) behavior we are
all influenced by our "need" to communicate with others.

Unfortunately, we've all been "programmed" by exposure
to less than ideal "models" of how to control our emotions.

We tend to do as we've been taught.  Right or wrong.

Using cerium oxide to mimic absorption of solar energy by plants
High-Flux Solar-Driven Thermochemical Dissociation of CO2 and H2O Using Nonstoichiometric Ceria

http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/using-cerium-oxide-to-mimic-absorption-of-solar-energy-by-plants/

Very interesting Peterae.

More detail can be found HERE. (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/12/solar-reactor-for-the-two-step-thermochemical-production-of-fuels-from-water-and-carbon-dioxide.html)

I remember buying some cerium oxide some years ago from a glass merchant, it's used for polishing scratches out of glass

Merry Christmas AC, you do make me smile!  :)

Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.12.25, 17:29:32
I think you started this statement well enough but again reverted to the habit of making false statements not as opinion but as fact, in fact it is not plain and clear to "everyone" that Ist is a mindless idot which should be obvious.

Glad you approved of the start at least. Sorry AC, I should have said, 'it is plain and clear to anyone with half a brain that IST is a mindless idiot'. I stand corrected  :)

You are obviously offended by how I regard IST and by what I say, but I'm only using legitmate dictionary words. And these words are there to serve just such a purpose.  If I call a black man black, I'm not being racist, I'm not being insulting... he is black. Likewise if I call an idiotic person an idiot, I'm hardly doing him an injustice if he is an idiot. I'm only surprised that they don't give IST's name by way of an example in the dictionary definition of idiot!

I really don't see what your problem is, or indeed why you are making so much of this.  This has always just been my opinion of IST, but as for facts, well get real man, the facts do tend to speak for themselves... and have done so for some 4000-odd posts!

You're making far too much of this, but you're also making too light of the disruption IST causes. The clap-trap aside, you seem to be forgeting how offensive some of ISTs lunatic rantings have been.  There was a time on Hartmanns forum, on the JT thread, when someone actually donated a signal generator to IST, who agreed just to pay the P&P. He never did pay the P&P and when the donator commented on this, IST took photos of the sig. gen as he smashed it to pieces and then uploaded the photos to the forum attached to very offensive posts.

Now, do you think this is the behaviour of a sane or intelligent human being?  Well? Tell you what AC, you have a look through the dictionary and see if you can find words more apt than, 'mindless idiot' to describe IST... and when you find them let me know.

Are you by any chance a vicar?

Happy holidays all,
Ist, a verifiable singularity from twin black holes from a negative parallel universe.
After trying to help with a simple oscillator, I gave up. Destroying equipment too?  Definately verified.
Back to the topic, plated or dissimilar metal electrodes, a worthy experiment for a lower voltage drop between cells. More plates per unit, more gas.
Has this been investigated by anyone?
steve.

Farrah,
You were right about the magnetic mending plates,
From Energetic
------------------------


Mookie  
Junior Member   Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 22  

.

Chet / Yaro

The reason I suggested stainless steel mending plates is that someone mentioned
that they weren't able to get their hands on 403, 420, 430 or 431 martensitic steel
(stainless steel with magnetic properties able to be attracted to a magnet).

As a substitute, these will work just fine as electrode plates and can be found in
most home improvement stores, farm supply, or building stores in the section
where they sell brackets and hinges.

They are generally made of 400 series martensitic stainless steel
in various sizes, some as large as 3" x 4".

Bring a small magnet to test for their attraction before you buy them.

Mookie
Attached Thumbnails
-----------------------------
Chet
PS
I think Oliver and Valentin are on a completely different page than Freddie!
A whole nother book!!

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10156.msg268231#new

YES!!! O0


   

From Freddy's thread,

lamare 
Quote:

An interesting detail in the following book:

http://www.free-energy-info.com/Blitz.pdf

Jack Blitz - Ultrasonics : Methods and Applications

Page 143 (77 in pdf) :


Quote:
7.9 Chemical effects

One of the effects of cavitation in a liquid is the promotion of chemical reactions. This is caused by the electrolytic action brought about by the appearance of equal and opposite free electrical charges at opposite ends of the bubbles, the enormous local increases of pressure and temperature when the bubbles collabse, and the release of energy from the bubbles when resonating with the ultrasonic waves.
Ordinary tap-water electrolyses as a result of cavitation, and, if certain substances are dissolved in it, either oxidation or reduction may occur, depending on the nature of the dissolved substance. 

This basically says you can electrolyse tap-water using acoustic resonance effects.
__________________

Yes, checked out that document that 'lamare' posted 'over there' and the following is a quote from two paragraphs after lamare's quote (as listed above) ends.

QuoteBecause of the very slow rates of reaction, the chemical changes brought about by ultrasound have very little practical application. However, it has been found that ultrasonics have accelerated by a considerable extent those chemical changes initiated by other means.

(emphases mine)

Fascinating thoughts, eh? I wonder how many of the devices that have achieved apparent 'over-Faraday' electrolysis have indeed been employing (knowingly or not) a form of this ultrasonic 'boost'. I haven't digested the whole document yet, but have always wondered about the acoustics that may be involved here. I asked for your thoughts on this over there Farrah Day and was disappointed you didn't respond... now I know why!!! ;D It's unfortunate that some people weren't enjoying and 'learning' from the discussions you were having with lamare like I was.... :-[ But hey, I guess we ALL are subject to that nasty thing called ego at one point or another in our lives and have to be humbled by the very thing that we're convinced of....and that forum 'moderator' is no exception to this rule....Ah, well.... life....

I see from your earlier posts here that you, too, have seen the possibilities that exist for all of these factors to be simultaneously occurring within these 'resonant' cells!! I'll be following your work closely here as it unfolds! I hope to soon be in a better position to build one of these for myself and try some out some of the ideas in my head, but being on the road 6 days a week is not too conducive to that at the moment, so I'll be rooting fer ya as you build and test your hypotheses on yours!

Thanks again for 'keeping it real', some really do appreciate when others call a spade a spade!

regards from the west ('US - West', that is)! Also, thanks Chet for your link 'over there' to this forum!
groundhog

@ Farrah

Sorry, but one other question.

On that Freddy thread, he states he is compressing his cell to over 60 PSI. What is your take on the gasses he is producing that would allow that without an explosive (or implosive) recombination happening? Or if he truly isn't legit, what COULD theoretically evolve from an electrolytic solution as stated where that would become plausible? My math is much stronger than my chemistry and I'm stumped with this...

groundhog

Quote from: groundhog on 2011.01.08, 10:01:25
I asked for your thoughts on this over there Farrah Day and was disappointed you didn't respond... now I know why!!! ;D It's unfortunate that some people weren't enjoying and 'learning' from the discussions you were having with lamare like I was.... :-[ But hey, I guess we ALL are subject to that nasty thing called ego at one point or another in our lives and have to be humbled by the very thing that we're convinced of....and that forum 'moderator' is no exception to this rule....Ah, well.... life....

groundhog

Hi GH, Aaron banned me from Energetic Forum, hence my not being able to respond to your post over there. It seems I asked too many difficult or uncomfortable questions of people who claim to know it all.  As you say... that's life.

With regards to FF, I think everything he says has to be taken with a pinch of salt.  He says one thing one minute, then something else the next, before going on to talk a load of complete and utter bollocks!  You will note that the FF saga has been going now for months and he has yet to disclose any real information - or get independent verification of his claims.  And indeed some of his videos actually rather seem to emphasise that he can't do what he claims (particularly the bench electrolyser video, whereby he feeds the truck in the workshop the gas for about 15 seconds before it stalls!). 

Though there is a great concern about compressing H2 and O2, a number of people have compressed hydroxy without any apparent problems, Rhodes and Ohmasa, come to mind. Whether the resulting gases from a common duct electrolyser do indeed have a property that is different from compressing to seperate sources of H2 and O2 is still very much in question, but could possibly have something to do with Parahydrogen vs Orthohydrogen combinations.  However, it might simply be that all the necessary precautions have been made... or they have been lucky! Certainly not something I'd want to experiment with.

If we only have H20 (and KOH as the electrolyte) then the possible chemical combinations are clearly limited.  Moreso if using just H2O (though there will be some dissolved gases withing the water such as O2 and N2).  However, whereas standard electrolysis produces H2 and O2, cavitation in water can result in other radicals that are not normally seen in electrolysis, such as Hydrogen Peroxide H2O2. But of course the only real gains come if we are producing useful radicals for less energy than standard electrolysis uses, or we see a real gain in exothermic reaction upon combustion.

The Eckman paper shows an unknown spike on his Atomic Mass Analysis for Brown's Gas gragh, that to me at least suggests the presence of deuterium. The only thing is, it is at a far greater level than you would expect.  Just wish I had acess to mass spectrometers and suchlike.

http://pesn.com/2010/05/28/9501658-Plasma_Orbital_Expansion-of-the-Electrons_in_Water/

 

GroundHog,
Wecome,
Sometimes new places need a little time to get use to,See here also re; acceleration and on going experiments being shared by Mookie and others.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=399.msg8893;topicseen#msg8893

Chet

@ Farrah Day

QuoteWith regards to FF, I think everything he says has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Definitely, pending some replications and independent verification!

QuoteCertainly not something I'd want to experiment with.

For sure... though you wouldn't have to have somebody tell you that you failed!  ;D

QuoteBut of course the only real gains come if we are producing useful radicals for less energy than standard electrolysis uses, or we see a real gain in exothermic reaction upon combustion.

Just theorizing here, but what if you could 'kill two birds with one stone?' That is, produce the required V & I for a standard electrolysis reaction, and simultaneously with that same V & I induce a resonant magnetic or acoustic standing wave in the medium? It could theoretically 'boost' the known molecular reaction without increasing the cost to the source (ie. our wallets!  ;)).

I see that you're familiar with the ultrasonic cavitation technology and the only reason that I mention the magnetic wave is because of the Mike Nunnerley thread over at EF, have you seen that? Apart from the spelling errors that drive me nuts... he seems to have accomplished something there worth considering if it, too, survives further investigation/replication. Plus, the mookie thread here as well makes mention of an apparent magnetic effect.

That Nunnerley thread is here if you haven't seen it: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6431-none-electrolytic-splitting-h2o.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6431-none-electrolytic-splitting-h2o.html) Sorry, if this is still a sore subject....

QuoteThe Eckman paper shows an unknown spike on his Atomic Mass Analysis for Brown's Gas graph, that to me at least suggests the presence of deuterium. The only thing is, it is at a far greater level than you would expect.  Just wish I had access to mass spectrometers and suchlike.

http://pesn.com/2010/05/28/9501658-Plasma_Orbital_Expansion-of-the-Electrons_in_Water/

Thanks for this... fascinating. I'll have to try to digest this as well!

@ Chet

Thanks for the warm welcome, yes I've seen that thread as well (& YouTube), but really haven't had the time to cover it all thoroughly. My first thoughts were the same as Farrah's in that it was a mechanically induced vibration; however I see now that he has addressed that in earlier 'purely mechanical' vibrational tests so it leaves me to wonder if his magnetic field isn't somehow working in conjunction with the electrical field and simulating in some respects the RF wave that Mike Nunnerley uses in his system. I guess it'll just require more patience...(sigh) until such time as we can really get a handle on the true process happening here. Whatever it is, it's got to be a very hostile environment for the water molecule!! I think I'd come 'unglued' pretty rapidly in that environment too ;D

Regards from the West! And wishes for a very productive New Year!!
groundhog

Quote from: groundhog on 2011.01.08, 19:06:42
@ Farrah Day
 Just theorizing here, but what if you could 'kill two birds with one stone?' That is, produce the required V & I for a standard electrolysis reaction, and simultaneously with that same V & I induce a resonant magnetic or acoustic standing wave in the medium? It could theoretically 'boost' the known molecular reaction without increasing the cost to the source (ie. our wallets!  ;)).

GH, that's exactly how I see this panning out. To my mind cavitation is a by-product of the plates (or tubes) oscillating due to the interacting magnetic fields that arise because of pulsing currents - and of course something that we would never encounter in straight dc electrolysers. This then acts as a catalyst to normal electrolysis. No doubt that some energy is required to make the plates oscillate, but this has likely always been the case when using a PWM to pulse the current through the cells, but now we are looking to enhance this effect by hitting a resonant frequency.

It has also recently occurred to me that the pressure variations within the water created by oscillating plates will not only possibly form pockets of water vapour on rarefaction, but also cause the bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen leaving the electrodes to undergo some major stresses. After all, if a bubble of water vapour can form and implode due to cavitation, then surely the same can be said for the hydrogen and oxygen bubbles.  

QuoteI see that you're familiar with the ultrasonic cavitation technology and the only reason that I mention the magnetic wave is because of the Mike Nunnerley thread over at EF, have you seen that? Apart from the spelling errors that drive me nuts... he seems to have accomplished something there worth considering if it, too, survives further investigation/replication. Plus, the mookie thread here as well makes mention of an apparent magnetic effect.

That Nunnerley thread is here if you haven't seen it: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6431-none-electrolytic-splitting-h2o.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6431-none-electrolytic-splitting-h2o.html) Sorry, if this is still a sore subject....

Thanks for this... fascinating. I'll have to try to digest this as well!

groundhog

Mike Nunnerley's thread is one of the reasons I was banned by Aaron, as he effectively called me stupid for asking questions that Mike had already answered (NOT), and deemed my constant questions to be harassment (check out page 1-3 of that thread). Needless to say I made my feelings about him known in no uncertain terms, and that was that. Aaron has since deleted many of my posts and indeed his own retorts. Anyway, a few of them are clearly all in bed together over there and as thick as thieves, so even asking legitimate questions that they won't - or can't - answer often causes them to gang up on someone like me.  Many of them are simply following Mikes lead and have no idea what they are talking about, or indeed what they are doing, others, like Aaron, make out that they know it all and yet see fit to be ellusive.  I really don't trust Mike as he is a bit of a bullshitter, he once claimed to be working behind the scenes with Tutanka on an ionisation device, but later Tutanka claimed this had never been so :o.  And I seriously get the impression that, very much like FF, Mike is enjoying the attention and just blagging his way through it.  When I asked about what reactions he thought would be occurring, he always avoided the question and tried to belittle me by way of an answer, just as Aaron (prize dick) always did.  Mike is also one of these irritating people that seems to enjoy telling everyone that he knows this and that, he has all the answers, but then gets even greater pleasure from telling them that his lips are sealed due to a non-disclosure act or similar... how very convenient. To be honest I think he's just an attention seeker, someone that tries to elevate himself at the top of the heap by piling up the bullshit - I don't think he has a clue. And besides I personally could never put any faith in someone, supposedly educated, that titles his thread, 'None Electrolytic Splitting of H2o', instead of the grammatically correct, 'Non-Electrolytic Splitting of H2O'.   The terrible spelling aside, the whole thread contains no actual science that relates to how RF electromagnetic waves actually dissociate the water molecule. There is not even any theorising of the reaction that must take place for it to work. I once asked Mike if he thought that the water molecule was ionising first, but he didn't seem to even understand the question.  I don't believe that anything will ever come of it, and just like Tutanka's claims, in time it will all dissipate into nothingness.

I'm going to be starting a new thread on my bench specifically for discussing Chris Eckman's paper, and particularly the findings of the mass spectrometer gas analysis, which I've been studying further over the Christmas period.  I did actually email Eckman a while ago with some questions about the obvious flaws in his paper but, alas, he has never replied.  

@ Farrah

My apologies for bringing up the nunnerley thread, I erred in thinking that it was the Freddy thread that was the 'kicker' for you. After going back to the beginning of THIS thread, I see now your references to that. Please forgive my lack of due consideration.

All difficult personality relations aside however, it would seem premature to totally disregard their apparent 'discoveries' just yet. I am fascinated with this RF effect as demonstrated relatively openly by Kanzius. Then when you add Nunnerley and possibly mookie into that camp as well, it seems there could be something useful yet to come out of it all.

It's truly a shame that some of these 'inventions' can't seem to get past their 'inventors' because of silly personality issues! :-\ I mean, really, how hard is it to just say "I don't know, but here's what I did and here's what I've seen"? Obviously it's too hard for some, which is one of the primary reasons that I passed on my opportunity to participate in one of the institutions of so called 'higher education' many moons ago!

Let's hope that at least one of these will produce something substantial enough that we can replicate and thereby observe and study to find out some real answers. Perhaps you're right in that some of these truly CAN'T give any definitive answers and so have landed on a 'mystical energy source' to help avoid having to reply with the above referenced 'hard answer'.

Don't get me wrong, I am also fascinated by Bearden's/Bedini's theories and have been trying to mentally capture what they have put out (though Bearden's 'maths' are well beyond my training), it seems plausible from what I can grasp that we potentially could have a radical new 'growth spurt' in store over the next few decades in our fundamental understanding of energy, if TPTB let down their guard too long that is...

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011.01.09, 15:59:44
It has also recently occurred to me that the pressure variations within the water created by oscillating plates will not only possibly form pockets of water vapour on rarefaction, but also cause the bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen leaving the electrodes to undergo some major stresses. After all, if a bubble of water vapour can form and implode due to cavitation, then surely the same can be said for the hydrogen and oxygen bubbles.

Do you suppose this is where some of the variants in the gasses which are being evolved is occurring? Is that the direction of your thoughts with this? Do I hear Deuterium from a cell implied here, from YOU? Or is my ignorance getting the best of me? >:D

Quote
I'm going to be starting a new thread on my bench specifically for discussing Chris Eckman's paper, and particularly the findings of the mass spectrometer gas analysis, which I've been studying further over the Christmas period.  I did actually email Eckman a while ago with some questions about the obvious flaws in his paper but, alas, he has never replied.  

I'd be interested in following that thread and absorbing as much of the discussion as possible!

I'm almost certain that many others have brought those issues to his attention as well, and hopefully TPTB haven't caused him to back off of his studies in that direction as he does appear to be young and may not want to 'make any more waves' in the 'establishment', his career objectives thus being 'potentially jeopardized'. I suppose you are familiar with those pressure tactics? We can only hope that he'll continue to open his info publicly, so we can all benefit from his findings.

Much studying/thinking to do...
groundhog

Quote from: groundhog on 2011.01.10, 11:40:19
@ Farrah

My apologies for bringing up the nunnerley thread, I erred in thinking that it was the Freddy thread that was the 'kicker' for you. After going back to the beginning of THIS thread, I see now your references to that. Please forgive my lack of due consideration.

All difficult personality relations aside however, it would seem premature to totally disregard their apparent 'discoveries' just yet. I am fascinated with this RF effect as demonstrated relatively openly by Kanzius. Then when you add Nunnerley and possibly mookie into that camp as well, it seems there could be something useful yet to come out of it all.

Don't worry about hurting my feeling GH, with my lack of tact and diplomacy skills, I can't afford to be over-sensistive. :)  You have to bear in mind when I say these things that I've been around these forums for a long time and have now developed a sixth sense for utter bullshit - I also have long experience with Nunnerley claiming things but never offering up the proof or indeed further details when asked.  I see nothing on that Nunnerley thread that is anything different from what we know Kanzius achieved (the science behind which is still yet to be explained), nor anything by way of proof, even though Mike states that he knows it works because he did it before. He always fails to cite references or give specifics. If he did it before, why all the messing about? Just replicate the bloody experiment again!  Might just be my natural sceptiscm GH, but I don't trust him or his science. Time will tell, eh!

Quote
Do you suppose this is where some of the variants in the gasses which are being evolved is occurring? Is that the direction of your thoughts with this? Do I hear Deuterium from a cell implied here, from YOU? Or is my ignorance getting the best of me? >:D

Tap water will obviously contain various minerals and absorbed gases, as Eckman's Atomic Mass Analysis graph shows, but the prospect of creating Deuterium Oxide or Heavy Water (D2O) in an electrolyser does seem rather absurd.  In nature only around 156 ppm of hydrogen atoms are deuterium, yet the peak on Eckman's graph that he calls 'Plasma Expanded Water', is sitting right around where you would expect Deuterium Oxide to be if it were indeed present (atomic mass 20.04). The thing is, that this is a relatively high peak, which would suggest a lot of deuterium oxide - far more than would naturally be present.  Certainly with an atomic mass of around 20, it cannot simply be water with a few extra electrons in a higher orbit, that could not possibly account for the additional mass.  

However, there is an obvious problem, and that is that although this unknown peak sits between  the 18.042 water vapour peak and the 22.992 sodium peak, Eckman for some reason does not actually give it an atomic mass figure. And it would appear that the x axis of the graphis  not linear. In my email to him I did ask if he had a specific figure for the atomic mass of that peak, but I doubt he will ever reply.

Quote
I'd be interested in following that thread and absorbing as much of the discussion as possible!

I'm almost certain that many others have brought those issues to his attention as well, and hopefully TPTB haven't caused him to back off of his studies in that direction as he does appear to be young and may not want to 'make any more waves' in the 'establishment', his career objectives thus being 'potentially jeopardized'. I suppose you are familiar with those pressure tactics? We can only hope that he'll continue to open his info publicly, so we can all benefit from his findings.

Much studying/thinking to do...
groundhog

Sure, Eckman is young, but as an undergraduate he must know that a scientific paper should be relatively error free other than perhaps when theorising.  I just get the feeling that he's gone off half-cocked and produced the paper before he has fully researched all the elements. However, the errors he's made about how normal electrolysis works and his incorrect use of the term 'isotope' may ultimately not be important. It is just that I find that these kind of errors, once recognised, must surely and inevitably cast doubt on the accuracy of everything else written therein.

I've already detailed a lot of my thoughts on the Eckman paper in various posts, but feel it would be a good idea to bring it all under one roof. Because, though I find the paper itself riddled with some quite blatant flaws, the mass spectrometer gas analysis graph is surely extremely valuable and indeed useful information.  At least on these forums, I don't know of anyone who has highlighted the flaws in the paper other trhan myself.

So many things about this sound so familiar,now that I have some perspective.

From Here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10230.msg271729#new


From A new fellow "Batfish"

Posts: 2

Re: COLD FUSION SUCCESS
« Reply #28 on: Today at 01:08:01 PM »Quote@mscoffman

See

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/19/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-probably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli

and

http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#dpnr

These and other articles relate Focardi's work to a finding reported by Francesco Piantelli, a biophysicist at the University of Siena, based on an observation made in 1988. There was an article in Nuovo Cimento  by Focardi, Habel and Piantelli, and the finding seems to have been replicated at the University of Pavia (see New Energy Times articles for references).

It seems that Piantelli didn't follow up energy aspects of his finding, as he is concerned with finding a treatment for cancer.

I was puzzled how a setup involving Hydrodgen and Nickel related to biophysics. The answer seems to lie in the use of Raney Nickel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel) as a catalyst for hydrogenation of vegetable oils.

Raney nickel is made by using caustic soda to dissolve most of the aluminum out of a chunk of nickel-aluminium alloy, leaving a chunk of extremely porous nickel that can have a a surface area of 100 m2 per gram. The process (2 Al + 2 NaOH + 6 H2O → 2 Na[Al(OH)4] + 3 H2) releases hydrogen and the resulting material is presumably used to absorb hydrogen and deliver it in the hydrogenation process.

I seem to remember that Raney Nickel has also been mentioned in relation to the Blacklight process

So it looks as if Focardi's system is likely to involve some kind of Raney Nickel as providing a deeply porous container for processes of the kind that were observed by Piantelli.

Farrah
Here yah go

50 LPM 24 bucks [PDF]

http://cgi.ebay.com/50-LPM-Hydrogen-Cell-Unit-Plans-/230611863158?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35b189c676

Chet

Quote from: ramset on 2011.04.24, 02:09:04
Farrah
Here yah go

50 LPM 24 bucks [PDF]

http://cgi.ebay.com/50-LPM-Hydrogen-Cell-Unit-Plans-/230611863158?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35b189c676

Chet

Hey what happened to this thread?
Stopped many months ago, I've been gone for a while too!
Is this a scammer that made plans for Freddy's device on PDF? Anybody tried this PDF?

Re:- water resonance

http://www.google.com/patents/download/13_123_024_METHODS_AND_APPARATUS_TO_CREA.pdf?id=V6XrAQAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2AVZVLOXfDrvLrToOVthI0cuPkWA&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0 (http://www.google.com/patents/download/13_123_024_METHODS_AND_APPARATUS_TO_CREA.pdf?id=V6XrAQAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2AVZVLOXfDrvLrToOVthI0cuPkWA&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0)

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.10.06, 14:36:29


I've also seen it written that any voltage above the required voltage necessary to induce electrolysis does nothing but create heat. This of course is nonsense. Over voltage may reduce overall efficiency of the electrolyser due to the V x I = W of ohms law, but by the very same law also states V/R = I. In other words increasing the voltage will of course increase the current and so result in more product/s.

My my, seems like this is indeed old school for you.  So have you figure out how to make electrolysis OU?  I think if we can make electrolysis happens below 1.2 V, we can achieve OU. 

I don't consider OU in its strictest sense to be attainable in way, shape or form. Though I'm quite comfortable with the terms, 'Free Energy' or 'ZPE' and fully open to the possibility of certain devices being able to acquire excess energy from the environment.

QuoteI think if we can make electrolysis happens below 1.2 V, we can achieve OU. 

Why would you think this? Besides, we can already 'make electrolysis happen below 1.2 V', by the introduction of certain catalysts, but while a voltage is required to draw a current there will always be a power requirement.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.01, 17:58:42


Why would you think this? Besides, we can already 'make electrolysis happen below 1.2 V', by the introduction of certain catalysts, but while a voltage is required to draw a current there will always be a power requirement.

It's simple logic that if you have a capacitor of 1 volt and depletes it in electrolysis.  The hydrogen amount according to Faraday would gives more energy than the capacitor.

Catalysts... interesting.

Simple logic, eh... better get myself some of that!

I see.  Well, I prepared some explanation hoping it will be simple.

In water electrolysis, they calculated the max efficiency (100%) is about 1.23V to 1.48V.  That means your input power is I(1.23) where I is the current.  If you can lower V below 1.23, then your input is lower while getting the same amount of hydrogen (since hydrogen only depends on current I).  So one can say 1.23 is unity point.  Above that, waste energy, below that, OU.

You can also calculated how many moles of hydrogen you could get from 1 volt cap by substitute CV=Q into Faraday equation.  Then calculate how much energy from the moles and compare it to the cap.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.10.06, 14:36:29

DISSOCIATION OF THE WATER MOLECULE

Farrah Day, October 2010

The term over-Faraday is often employed to situations whereby it would seem that more gases are
being produced for a given power than allowed for by Faraday's laws.

People like Bob boyce, Dave Lawton (and John Worrell Keely) produce over Faraday results but
their process is not electrolysis but a form of water cracking involving resonance. reminiscent
of the opera singer breaking a champagne glass by singing a note which is the resonant
frequency of the glass in question.

The frequency of 42.8khz (and lower octaves) is oft mentioned along with ultrasonic transducers.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.02, 16:06:39
People like Bob boyce, Dave Lawton (and John Worrell Keely) produce over Faraday results but
their process is not electrolysis but a form of water cracking involving resonance. reminiscent
of the opera singer breaking a champagne glass by singing a note which is the resonant
frequency of the glass in question.

The frequency of 42.8khz (and lower octaves) is oft mentioned along with ultrasonic transducers.

What you will actually find is that there can be a combination of things occurring, but in most cases Faraday electrolysis is still the predominant reaction.  

Obviously you've picked up snippets of info from various web sites, but do you actually believe all of what you've posted? Clearly you have little real or first-hand knowledge on the subject so are you just trusting that everything you read is factual and absolutely accurate? Blind faith?

Also, be very careful, much of this is no more than hearsay that over the years has spread so wildly as to be seen by many as fact.  Though he has disappeared from the forums over recent years, Bob Boyce is probably the most prolific of his kind in this field. However, he was elevated to guru status by the misguided and blind followers not because he has ever proved his technology or indeed his worth, but rather because he has been around and bullshitting for so long that his name has become synonymous with this stuff.  

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.03.02, 13:39:00
I see.  Well, I prepared some explanation hoping it will be simple.

In water electrolysis, they calculated the max efficiency (100%) is about 1.23V to 1.48V.  That means your input power is I(1.23) where I is the current.  If you can lower V below 1.23, then your input is lower while getting the same amount of hydrogen (since hydrogen only depends on current I).  So one can say 1.23 is unity point.  Above that, waste energy, below that, OU.

You can also calculated how many moles of hydrogen you could get from 1 volt cap by substitute CV=Q into Faraday equation.  Then calculate how much energy from the moles and compare it to the cap.

No, no, no! One can't say that 1.23 volts is the unity point and anything below this voltage is overunity - you have this very wrong!  It's simply an increase in efficiency over an electrolyser that is operating at or above 1.23 volts.

Look how much more efficient modern car engines are over their predecessors - they have become more efficient but that has not suddenly made them OU devices.

Farrah said:

QuoteAlso, be very careful, much of this is no more than hearsay that over the years has spread so wildly as to be seen by many as fact.  Though he has disappeared from the forums over recent years, Bob Boyce is probably the most prolific of his kind in this field. However, he was elevated to guru status by the misguided and blind followers not because he has ever proved his technology or indeed his worth, but rather because he has been around and bullshitting for so long that his name has become synonymous with this stuff.

You are so very right on. Urban legends all. BB=Big BS

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.02, 19:05:23
Obviously you've picked up snippets of info from various web sites, but do you actually believe all of what you've posted? Clearly you have little real or first-hand knowledge on the subject so are you just trusting that everything you read is factual and absolutely accurate? Blind faith?

Also, be very careful, much of this is no more than hearsay that over the years has spread so wildly as to be seen by many as fact.  Though he has disappeared from the forums over recent years, Bob Boyce is probably the most prolific of his kind in this field. However, he was elevated to guru status by the misguided and blind followers not because he has ever proved his technology or indeed his worth, but rather because he has been around and bullshitting for so long that his name has become synonymous with this stuff.  

Well stated.  We can indeed be very susceptible
to "bum skinny" before we acquire the needed
wisdom and experience to enable us to sort
the good from the bum.

Some thoughts on Extended Intelligence (http://www.letterfromserendipity.com/serendipity93.htm#two):

Quote from: Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
8. Extended intelligence easily spots hoaxes, arbitraries, authoritarianism and memes and eliminates them from his or her thinking.

This one is a whole lecture I give! Suffice it to throw in a few quick definitions here:

Hoax is the term I use for those accepted "truths", which are in fact false. You know, like the-Earth-is-flat things. There are plenty of hoaxes around. Religion seems built on them. The medical profession is loaded with them, as supposed science (fever must be suppressed, for example, whereas the truth is that a fever is the best natural healing you can get).

Arbitraries are facts, which get passed around, with no real structure or support. They just exist. Once you start to examine them, they fall apart as nonsense.

Authoritarianism is another kind of dead knowledge. Professor Blodwit of Bunga Bunga University said it, so it must be true. Kids are forced to learn this garbage to get their grades and certificates. But the true genius has no interest in such phoney knowledge.

Memes, you probably know, are "thought viruses", a good metaphor for what is happening: one mind infects another with a thought, which then gets passed along to yet another and so on. "Destroy America" is one that's gaining momentum; "The Bible is the word of God" is another that's been around a long time and has got a LOT of good people killed.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.02, 19:05:23

Obviously you've picked up snippets of info from various web sites,
but do you actually believe all of what you've posted?

Clearly you have little real or first-hand knowledge on the subject

"Obviously...." and "Clearly...."    ???

I saw Dave Lawton's set up at the 2008 UK Free energy Conference and he spoke
extensively on it.

The interesting feature is that the gases do NOT come from the electrodes. They come
from the space between them. In fact, on switch on, there is a period of about 3 seconds
and then the entire electrolyte goes milky white and the gasses come off.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.02, 22:04:45
"Obviously...." and "Clearly...."    ???


The interesting feature is that the gases do NOT come from the electrodes. They come
from the space between them.

Spot on Paul-R

While numerous experimenters have been able
to successfully produce Hydrogen and Oxygen
with some variation of the Meyer Water Fuel
Cell, I haven't yet seen any competent technical
evidence which would indicate that any have
ever exceeded "Faraday results."

Does anyone know of any such verification?

Quite a number have also attempted to replicate
the claims of Bob Boyce with some variant of his
101 Plate unit (or a smaller, less complex version)
but so far as I'm aware none have exceeded
"Faraday results."

Does anyone know otherwise?

There are two different happenings here, one is normal electrolysis where the gases do come from the electrodes and is the Faraday principle. The second where gases do come from between the electrodes, this is dielectric  break down which will happen when the dielectric is over charged giving a high amp discharge through the electrolyte, so breaking the bond.

To do the second example a system such as Meyer/Lawton has to be employed and one of the electrodes has to have a dielectric barrier of a porous nature, hence the use of tubes with the top and bottom of the tubes insulate from the rest of the electrolyte in the cell container with what is in between the two tubes. This will give lower resistance between the tubes than the rest of the cell, this makes sure that all the current discharges where it is wanted and not lost in the rest of the cell where it does nothing (weaker current path). This second way can be of greater efficiency than standard electrolysis. this was Meyer's whole idea (high voltage low amp pump charge,50hz giving a low voltage high amp discharge).

Mike 8)

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.02, 22:04:45
"Obviously...." and "Clearly...."    ???

I saw Dave Lawton's set up at the 2008 UK Free energy Conference and he spoke
extensively on it.

The interesting feature is that the gases do NOT come from the electrodes. They come
from the space between them. In fact, on switch on, there is a period of about 3 seconds
and then the entire electrolyte goes milky white and the gasses come off.

So, you saw an electrolyser in action, wow!  

There is also a video of the legendary Stanley Meyer with an electrolyser on a workbench that he claimed was super-efficient, running at high voltage, and mA current. To the inexperienced observer the gas output might look immense, but anyone who has experience with these devices knows it can be deceptive. Meyer was drawing around 500mA (half an Amp), which in an efficient multi-electrode electrolyser will look like a lot of gas is being produced, but even this is deceptive as those millions of tiny bubbles don't very quickly amount to much in terms of actual gas volume.

If you had experience of electrolysers yourself, then you would know that there is always a delay after switch-on before the electrolyte goes milky with bubbles.

How do you know the gases are not coming off the electrodes... somebody tell you that?  Because I'll challenge anyone to see this happening between electrodes spaced at just 2mm apart. And in the case of Meyer and Dave Lawton, who both use concentric tube electrodes this observation would be next to impossible.

You saw a demonstration that impressed you, fair enough. The real issue as I see it is that you were not in a position to make any valid scientific judgement on what you were seeing - either then or now.  How much gas was evolving, what current was being drawn? The devil is always in the detail!  

My problem is that you keep posting these things as given facts when nothing could be farther from the truth. And it is not as if you provide anything new in the way of scientific details to support or back up these claims. Do you see my point?

I've been around these forums for a long time, so I know - or know of - most of the people that have dabbled in this field. In the past I have conversed with both Boyce and Lawton, and while I have never heard anyone talk so much utter clap-trap as Boyce, who is no more than the ultimate charlatan, I did have respect for Dave Lawton who went out of his way to undertake detailed experiments. Rather than make outrageous claims, Lawton simply posted his results. I believed then that Dave Lawton was one of the good guys - I hope he still is.

Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.03.03, 09:40:08
There are two different happenings here, one is normal electrolysis where the gases do come from the electrodes and is the Faraday principle. The second where gases do come from between the electrodes, this is dielectric  break down which will happen when the dielectric is over charged giving a high amp discharge through the electrolyte, so breaking the bond.

To do the second example a system such as Meyer/Lawton has to be employed and one of the electrodes has to have a dielectric barrier of a porous nature, hence the use of tubes with the top and bottom of the tubes insulate from the rest of the electrolyte in the cell container with what is in between the two tubes. This will give lower resistance between the tubes than the rest of the cell, this makes sure that all the current discharges where it is wanted and not lost in the rest of the cell where it does nothing (weaker current path). This second way can be of greater efficiency than standard electrolysis. this was Meyer's whole idea (high voltage low amp pump charge,50hz giving a low voltage high amp discharge).

Mike 8)

Oh dear, here we go. Mike you really should have stayed at EF where the naïve and gullible will buy into this and hang on your every word without question. I can't believe you are playing the old dielectric break-down of the water molecule card - that went out of fashion an age ago, and is as incorrect and meaningless now as it was Meyer coined the phrase.

You are quickly becoming the next Bob Boyce - all talk, no substance. A poorly written paper on electrolysis, a hastily knocked-up website
http://www.centraflow.yolasite.com/ that basically just links to other peoples Youtube videos with nothing new or of any importance to show, (though I note it does have the obligatory DONATE button). You claim that you have developed an electrolysis process that is 85% more efficient than a 100% efficient electrolyser, or words to that effect.  But of course this is not detailed on your website - not even a photo of your own work... rather strange... why? ???

Oh, look, here are your actual words from EF:

QuoteWell Dr. Stifflers work and mine in places do cross paths. His electron recovery I do the same in SMD electrolysis, which is electrolysis but very efficient, about 85% over Faraday, which brings it into an ecconomical way to produce hydrogen.

The other way is using electron beam tech: and NO it is not electrolysis, if you read my paper on electrolytic cells you will see why.

With SMD I will be giving circuits and cell configuration in the near future for those who want to replicate, also detail on different gases other than just hydrogen and oxygen.

SMD electrolysis will produce the equivalent amount of gas as an efficient direct electrolysis but at "half the energy cost", so more cells = more gas and not SMD produces more gas, I just thought I would get that straight before someone asks, "JUST SCALE IT UP".

Mike

In the real world I'm not even sure that your last sentence makes any sense.

But anyway, we both know that this is only in your head and no evidence to support this claim will ever be forthcoming... don't we?  Because look, you also said this over at EF:

QuoteFor me I will never post anymore my hard work, I will find a way to put it into the public domain, built correctly and at a cheap price, protected from the one's who just want to rip people off, and yes I would have something in there for me, after all I was the inventor, at least pay my costs and a wage.

Mike

While I'm not against anyone being rewarded for their hard work, I'd love to know exactly where all of this so-called hard work you claim to have posted in the past is, because I've never seen anything that is not just conjecture and the scribblings of someone obviously keen to make the limelight. Like Boyce and so many others before you, you continually make these great claims, but fail utterly to provide anything by way of scientific support let alone even the slightest hint of real evidence to give any credence whatsoever to any of your claims. You must think that we're all idiots!  

Now, as in the past, you claim that you know so much, claim that you have achieved great things, and while you can get away with this BS over on EF, I think you will find that blind faith and ignorance is not so prevalent here and that a little more than your word is required.

So, MJN, are you really just all talk as I truly believe you are? Are you going to drop out and prove me right... Or are you going to make me eat my words?

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.03, 10:40:29

How do you know the gases are not coming off the electrodes...

I looked and I saw. It isn't easy but it can be done.

I think you are extremely insecure, Farrah day.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.03, 14:15:56

I think you are extremely insecure, Farrah day.

Fair enough, lol. 'Clearly' you are unskilled in the art, but nevertheless 'I think' you are being extremely gullible... and you either have a hyperactive imagination or your telling porkies.

So bearing DL's WFC is a close replica of Meyer's, take a look at this video and then tell me how anyone - however carefully they looked - could possibly see bubbles coming from between the electrodes.  ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azeZgWuHARM

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.02, 16:06:39
...reminiscent
of the opera singer breaking a champagne glass by singing a note which is the resonant
frequency of the glass in question.
...

I have not electrodes in my champagne glass and nevertheless I have bubbles.
In your hypothesis that we have bubbles between electrodes, why bubbles between electrodes would be the sign of cracking molecules?

Quote: I think you are extremely insecure, Farrah day.

I'll go along with that, seems you do not like me around here either?  am I causing problems for your pitch??  I don't think it's  from my last post, so what IS it with you, got your knickers in a twist again?

The funny thing is that the one with problems in every forum on the internet is you!!! very strange. There is nothing that I have to prove to you, not that I would anyway, you would be the last person in this world that I would explain anything direct to.

I am here because I was invited to be here, and as far as my web site, "I admit I do not have much time for it lately" the donate button is just that, 50% of the videos ARE MINE, but there again you don't even know what is going on there, do you? and that upsets you, doesn't it? Oh yes there was a donate button for my son on EF, did you donate, well No, and it was not for me, he had a very serious accident, 17yrs old and was in a coma for one and a half months and that was after reviving him twice, he was dead on arrival at the hospital but they brought him back. After just over one year in hospital at a cost to start with of 10,000 euros month until the insurance company paid up, things were bad on all fronts. Did you care? no, I am sure you thought it was all a lie to make money, perhaps you should say that to him, he still has problems speaking and walking, but he will know what you are talking about for sure.

Your personal attacks are not a problem for me because the people that have been working with me and replicated what I have shown to them and them only, know only too well what is right and what is not. Some things I do not show as they are what I earn  money with to keep body and soul together, the basics I show, but the rest will have to be experimented by the replicators,  sometimes items go beyond the home tinkler to do because of it's complexity, but the basics are there. Oh by the way they ALL work. There are some watching you now that know what I am saying, your fame precedes you and why you have few friends and have been baned from most places on the internet.

Mike

Any women who is safely breaking down water molecules, while posting, is simply not giving the experiment the attention it needs!   :-*


On a serious note, gas prices are marching upwards again and this research is now more critical then ever.


Here's a fundamental question:

Assume I have a parallel plate capacitor and the dielectric has an infinite breakdown voltage.  In the center of the plate I have a small void in the dielectric and place two water molecules.  I then increase the E-field to the breakdown limit and the water molecules break and recombine as two H2 and one O2 molecule.   No net charges have been exchanged between the plates, so where did the energy come from?  Afterall, two tiny molecules in the center won't distort the overall field, just locally in their immediate surrounding.

If this works, why not inject a stream of water through the high E-field zone and convert it to combustible gases?

Dielectric materials store energy, make no mistake about it.

EM

Thanks for the link to the video.  It is good
to see it again after several years.  It's
cleverly done and was no doubt an effective
promotional tool.

The advantage of concentric tube electrodes
is that they'll produce a strong convection
flow which pulls the gas bubbles from the
electrode surfaces before they become large.
This creates the illusion that the bubbles are
forming in the space between the electrodes.

The same effect can be produced with suspended
flat electrodes which are sealed at their vertical
edges.  A strong convection will be produced
which produces a flow of small bubbles which
appear to be forming in the space between
the electrodes providing the plates are close
enough together.  With widely spaced plates
the effect diminishes.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.03, 15:35:36
I have not electrodes in my champagne glass and nevertheless I have bubbles.
In your hypothesis that we have bubbles between electrodes, why bubbles between electrodes would be the sign of cracking molecules?

Why do you need electrode's to make HHO ?
Salt water and radio wave's are all thats needed.

Quote from: Centraflow re: Farrah Day
There are some watching you now that know what I am saying, your fame precedes you and why you have few friends and have been baned from most places on the internet.

Any who are Warriors For Truth and who seek
to expose the hoax will be banned from most
Forums.  This reveals more about the motives
of the Forums than the character of the Warrior.

Those who are in the Business of Deceiving for
Profit do not like being revealed for what they
truly are...

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.03, 15:50:50
Why do you need electrode's to make HHO ?
Salt water and radio wave's are all thats needed.

So correct, but not only salt, other dissolved compounds or elements will do the same for a catylist.

Mike 8)

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.03.03, 16:01:25
Any who are Warriors For Truth and who seek
to expose the hoax will be banned from most
Forums.  This reveals more about the motives
of the Forums than the character of the Warrior.

Those who are in the Business of Deceiving for
Profit do not like being revealed for what they
truly are...

And where are you coming from with that statement? To make a statement like that you need to have some evidence to the effect, just like doing an experiment!! don't see much from you here, though I admit I have not read every thread and post on this forum

Mike 8)

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.03.03, 15:41:49
Any women who is safely breaking down water molecules, while posting, is simply not giving the experiment the attention it needs!   :-*


On a serious note, gas prices are marching upwards again and this research is now more critical then ever.


Here's a fundamental question:

Assume I have a parallel plate capacitor and the dielectric has an infinite breakdown voltage.  In the center of the plate I have a small void in the dielectric and place two water molecules.  I then increase the E-field to the breakdown limit and the water molecules break and recombine as two H2 and one O2 molecule.   No net charges have been exchanged between the plates, so where did the energy come from?  Afterall, two tiny molecules in the center won't distort the overall field, just locally in their immediate surrounding.

If this works, why not inject a stream of water through the high E-field zone and convert it to combustible gases?

Dielectric materials store energy, make no mistake about it.

EM

Not sure what you mean by "infinite" in this sense.

If you have two plates, an anode and a cathode, and" one or two" dielectrics of greater strength than the water molecule which is in between. As you increase the electric field the dielectrics will form phantom fields, phantom electrodes, at the dielectric surface "away" from the plate or plates. At that point there will be a break down of the water molecule as the positive and negative charge builds and short circuits in the water molecule. In this case the discharge is probably filamentary through those two water molecules.

Now for what you are talking about, a type reverse jacobs ladder effect, but also the two electrodes make up a capacitor and the discharge takes place at the narrowest point.

Mike 8)

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.03, 15:50:50
Why do you need electrode's to make HHO ?
...

Nobody says it should be needed, certainly not me!
You are making objections to unformulated statements  C.C

The question to Paul-R was "In your hypothesis that we have bubbles between electrodes, why bubbles between electrodes would be the sign of cracking molecules?" and this question is relative to methods with electrodes, discussed above.

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.03.03, 16:01:25
Any who are Warriors For Truth and who seek
to expose the hoax will be banned from most
Forums.  This reveals more about the motives
of the Forums than the character of the Warrior.

Those who are in the Business of Deceiving for
Profit do not like being revealed for what they
truly are...

Dumped, once again well said. I hope we can continue to expose falsehoods on this forum without ever fear of being banned.

Hats off to Peterae for funding this site privately.

Hats of to Farrah for speaking truth.

"In times of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act"

And I might add "courageous"

QuoteI am here because I was invited to be here, and as far as my web site, "I admit I do not have much time for it lately" the donate button is just that, 50% of the videos ARE MINE, but there again you don't even know what is going on there, do you? and that upsets you, doesn't it?

Let me guess, you was invited by your buddy AC!  ;)

Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.03.03, 09:40:08
There are two different happenings here, one is normal electrolysis where the gases do come from the electrodes and is the Faraday principle. The second where gases do come from between the electrodes, this is dielectric  break down which will happen when the dielectric is over charged giving a high amp discharge through the electrolyte, so breaking the bond.
...

A dielectric is an insulator and a break down is a flow of free electrons forced through it. A dielectric "charge" is the creation and orientation of electric dipoles (electron/nucleus, or polar molecules) under the effect of an external electric field. These dipoles must be in an insulator otherwise the charges would flow instead of creating the counter-polarization field inside the material.
On the other side an electrolyte is a conductor thanks to ions and it doesn't contain free electrons. It can't be charged contrarily to a real dielectric due to the ion mobility.
So what do you mean by "dielectric over charged" in the case of an electrolyte, and what kind of physical event would be a "break down" in an electrolyte?

Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.03.03, 16:06:34
And where are you coming from with that statement? To make a statement like that you need to have some evidence to the effect, just like doing an experiment!! don't see much from you here, though I admit I have not read every thread and post on this forum

Mike 8)

You have quite a nerve to say this when you have never actually shown one of your imaginary inventions. Quite the hypocrite too, Mike.

It's not just you, Mike, it's what you stand for, and the fact that you peddle your nonsense, acting as if you are an authority on the subject when in reality you contribute nothing.

I think you will find that I was already banned from EF when decided to ask for monies from the forum members, but you are correct, I would not have donated. If it is true about your son (and I am sure there must be some things you wont BS about) then that is very sad, but as I can't bring myself to trust someone that constantly makes extraordinary claims but continually talks a load of old bollocks, why would I ever trust anything you say?

From EF:

QuoteJust under two years ago I asked for help here when I had a problem with my son, out of XXXXXXXX members here only 5 gave me support, dosn't say much of a community spirit does it?

Yeah, what happened to all those friends and supporters you had? Those that stood by your side to make my life difficult simply because I was asking questions you couldn't answer? Perhaps you're not as popular as you'd like to think you are... welcome to the real world!

Bob Boyce also used to ask for donations too - for funeral costs when his wife died and each time he claimed to have terminal cancer! C.C Funny, but I never trust people that bring their personal lives onto these forums looking for the sympathy vote. Why would anyone in their right mind want to air their personal and private lives to the world and his wife... to cyberspace entities, to total strangers... why?

Anyway Mike, moving on, and just to get this clear, I take it that you are not then going to elaborate on your DSM, SDP... SMD... or whatever... the 185% Faraday thingy? You are not going to open a new thread to discuss your invention or your claims? Not even going to tease us with a bit of science? No? Probably best really Mike, because as long as it hasn't been picked apart by people that actually know what they are talking about, you are free to continue making your wild claims.  And let's face it, Meyer was claiming 1700% Faraday, so by comparison your effort is hardly worth a mention.  ;)

People know me as a no-nonsense, straight-talker, but they won't know why you rile me so much. What they won't know is that we have history - I know you, and I know exactly what you are about. And I'm far less tolerant of bullshit than I used to be.

EX

Can you please try this experiment with your RF amps? If you haven't already.

Take two copper pipes of different diameters, and place one inside the other, thus forming a cylindrical capacitor, at low frequency, and a coaxial transmission line at high frequency.

Cut the length of the pipes to be 1/4 wavelength resonant, when distilled water is used as the dielectric, which has a relative dielectric constant of about 79.  

Then hook up to it and adjust the frequency to build up that standing wave voltage inside the pipes.  If you can operate at 30 MHz, the wavelength in pure water should be slightly over 1 meter, so 1/4 meter should be a reasonable length to work with.

EM

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.03, 17:13:39
A dielectric is an insulator and a break down is a flow of free electrons forced through it. A dielectric "charge" is the creation and orientation of electric dipoles (electron/nucleus, or polar molecules) under the effect of an external electric field. These dipoles must be in an insulator otherwise the charges would flow instead of creating the counter-polarization field inside the material.
On the other side an electrolyte is a conductor thanks to ions and it doesn't contain free electrons. It can't be charged contrarily to a real dielectric due to the ion mobility.
So what do you mean by "dielectric over charged" in the case of an electrolyte, and what kind of physical event would be a "break down" in an electrolyte?

You expect an educated reply? Good luck with that Exn.

Meyer always claimed that he was 'fracturing' water by getting voltage do the work with very little current flowing, often quoting the dielectric constant of pure water. His whole claim was centred around water being a good dielectric - so effectively an insulator. But there are immediately a few major problems with this claim, not least the fact that water is always to some extent self-ionising, but also the fact that Meyer (see the video) fills his electrolyser up with TAP water. In fact in one video he directly states that any water can be used, including SEA water!!

So how can you get dielectric breakdown when there is no dielectric in the first place?  More BS,

EM, EXN, take a look at this video snippet. If nothing else it should give you a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdnOy6EGu9c

Oh, and would you believe it, Mike's website seems to be down!

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.03, 18:10:13
You expect an educated reply? Good luck with that Exn.

Meyer always claimed that he was 'fracturing' water by getting voltage do the work with very little current flowing, often quoting the dielectric constant of pure water. His whole claim was centred around water being a good dielectric - so effectively an insulator. But there are immediately a few major problems with this claim, not least the fact that water is always to some extent self-ionising, but also the fact that Meyer (see the video) fills his electrolyser up with TAP water. In fact in one video he directly states that any water can be used, including SEA water!!

So how can you get dielectric breakdown when there is no dielectric in the first place?  More BS,

EM, EXN, take a look at this video snippet. If nothing else it should give you a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdnOy6EGu9c

If he had a method to do it with distilled water, then there is no reason the same setup couldnt also work with tap or sea water also.

Probably with some adjustments to the existing circuit  to work with all types of water solutions recommended. To limit the technology to 'pure distilled water' it is kind of a waste of energy in itself. When distilled water is made, what energy is used to complete that process?
What if you and your family are stuck lake side in your 'runs on water car' and are out of 'distilled' water?  ;)

The technology to detect what water is used in the device was available then, and could conduct circuit adjustments accordingly.

Mags

Quote from: Magluvin on 2013.03.03, 18:34:04
If he had a method to do it with distilled water, then there is no reason the same setup couldnt also work with tap or sea water also.

Probably with some adjustments to the existing circuit  to work with all types of water solutions recommended. To limit the technology to 'pure distilled water' it is kind of a waste of energy in itself. When distilled water is made, what energy is used to complete that process?
What if you and your family are stuck lake side in your 'runs on water car' and are out of 'distilled' water?  ;)

The technology to detect what water is used in the device was available then, and could conduct circuit adjustments accordingly.

Mags

Agreed, even if it worked distilled water would be pretty pointless, probably more expensive than petrol and worse still not pure for very long once the air gets in. But Meyer never claimed to use distilled (or pure) water anyway, he just used pure water's dielectric constant in his supporting text and lectures. Not really sure how he thought that would work  ???

You know of a way to stop sea water (or even just tap water) from conducting when you stick a high voltage directly across it?   ???

One of my techno pipe dreams I had a while ago, after hearing about John Kanzius burning sea water experiments, was to make a hand held transmiter and take it to the beach.  I would illuminate an area of water, i would ignite it, then move the magical flame on the surface of the ocean to any location I chose.

Now I know better, dimensions of the test tube are critical.  It's a resonant phenomena.

EM

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.03, 18:59:17

You know of a way to stop sea water (or even just tap water) from conducting when you stick a high voltage directly across it?  C.C

Im sure many here could work out a circuit that could do so, if they were so inclined.  O0

Mags

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.03.03, 15:41:49
Any women who is safely breaking down water molecules, while posting, is simply not giving the experiment the attention it needs!   :-*


On a serious note, gas prices are marching upwards again and this research is now more critical then ever.


Here's a fundamental question:

Assume I have a parallel plate capacitor and the dielectric has an infinite breakdown voltage.  In the center of the plate I have a small void in the dielectric and place two water molecules.  I then increase the E-field to the breakdown limit and the water molecules break and recombine as two H2 and one O2 molecule.   No net charges have been exchanged between the plates, so where did the energy come from?  Afterall, two tiny molecules in the center won't distort the overall field, just locally in their immediate surrounding.

If this works, why not inject a stream of water through the high E-field zone and convert it to combustible gases?

Dielectric materials store energy, make no mistake about it.

EM

In his lectures an diagrams, Meyer shows water molecules being rather conveniently pulled apart like you allude to above, to give 'clean' hydrogen atoms and 'clean' oxygen atoms - and when I say 'clean' I mean atoms rather than ions - that then combine to form molecules that evolve as gas.

However, this would be like pulling on the arms of a toy doll (or person) and having both arms come off the body at exactly the same time. It's just not going to happen that way, one arm will come off first leaving one arm still attached to the body (hope you like my analogy).  We know that it takes the least energy to break the water molecule down into H+ and OH- ions (so this will always happen first), and we also know that the O-H bond of the OH- species is now much stronger than when it was part of the water molecule, and so much harder to break. We also know that we need a charge exchange medium, (ie electrodes) in order to create atoms and achieve the production of the gases from what we are left with.

So the moral of the story EM, is that I wouldn't put too much time or effort in trying to fathom Meyer's science or his claims.  :)

Furthermore if what Meyer claimed was correct, then the electrodes need not even be in in direct contact with the water.

Quote from: Magluvin on 2013.03.03, 19:11:15
Im sure many here could work out a circuit that could do so, if they were so inclined.  O0

Mags

Mags, you'll note that I changed my emoticon thing in my last post to the 'huh' one, I hit 'the rolleyes' by mistake  so thought I'd better correct it as I wouldn't want to upset anyone.  :)

But on a more serious note, if Meyer's WFC worked as he claimed there would be no need to even have the electrodes in contact with the water. If as he states, voltage is doing the work and the goal is to prevent current flow, then just insulate the bloody electrodes... I wonder why he never thought of that?  ???

Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.03.03, 16:36:44
Not sure what you mean by "infinite" in this sense.

If you have two plates, an anode and a cathode, and" one or two" dielectrics of greater strength than the water molecule which is in between. As you increase the electric field the dielectrics will form phantom fields, phantom electrodes, at the dielectric surface "away" from the plate or plates. At that point there will be a break down of the water molecule as the positive and negative charge builds and short circuits in the water molecule. In this case the discharge is probably filamentary through those two water molecules.

Now for what you are talking about, a type reverse jacobs ladder effect, but also the two electrodes make up a capacitor and the discharge takes place at the narrowest point.

Mike 8)

Incidentally, I trust the above gobbledygook response at least goes someway to explaining my recent 'out of character' and somewhat 'frank' outbursts on this thread.

So then...
How did Meyer pour water into the car, Drive it really fast, then drink the exhaust?
We never see exhaust plumes from the acceleration, at least not in the video I saw of his dune buggy.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.03, 19:55:28
Mags, you'll note that I changed my emoticon thing in my last post to the 'huh' one, I hit 'the rolleyes' by mistake  so thought I'd better correct it as I wouldn't want to upset anyone.  :)

But on a more serious note, if Meyer's WFC worked as he claimed there would be no need to even have the electrodes in contact with the water. If as he states, voltage is doing the work and the goal is to prevent current flow, then just insulate the bloody electrodes... I wonder why he never thought of that?  ???

I didnt take note of the emoticon at the time.  ;]

Oh yes. Ive thought of capacitive connection to water. Havnt tried it. But with capacitive connection, we might need a fairly large capacity occurring to allow some period of time for DC to flow, as AC doesnt provide much in gas production.  ;) Then once fully charged, reverse the polarity and go again, for the time period to fully charge the capacitance the other way around. There would have to be a very large surface area of plates to have enough capacitance to produce a long enough time period, especially considering spacing of plates needed to allow flow of fluid and bubbles and keep things going. 

Maybe small capacitance but high voltage might get bubbles quicker. Hmm, if it were AC and each plate alternately produced O and H with each phase, is there gas produced or is it separating and recombining on each phase, thus no bubbles? 

But yeah, Ive thunk about it.  :D ;)

Mags

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.03, 16:52:03

The question to Paul-R was "In your hypothesis that we have bubbles between electrodes, why bubbles between electrodes would be the sign of cracking molecules?"

I am not saying that this is necessary.

I am saying that it happens, I saw it happen and it is a very weird thing to see.

We can create millions of Coulombs with 1 Joule.  Although Meyer said high voltage low amp, I think it's quite the contrary.  He must have ran thousands of amps through water with each pulse.  Imagine a parallel resonance circuit.  How many amps require to keep it in resonance?  How many amps does the tank circulates?

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.03.04, 00:35:16
We can create millions of Coulombs with 1 Joule.  Although Meyer said high voltage low amp, I think it's quite the contrary.  He must have ran thousands of amps through water with each pulse.  Imagine a parallel resonance circuit.  How many amps require to keep it in resonance?  How many amps does the tank circulates?

Yes indeed, what you are suggesting is contrary to everything that Meyer ever said or wrote - not that I would trust a single thing that he ever said or wrote - but there certainly aren't thousands of amps running through that electrolyser on his workbench. And, if this was the case it would be more akin to JLNaudins Bingo Plasma Reactor and light up like a Christmas tree.

If you are interested, my more detailed thoughts on Meyer are here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1046.0

And the resonance thing is always a big issue. He wasn't using AC, but pulsed DC. There is also a 'blocking diode' in his schematics, so what was supposed to be resonating... and how?

Some people, including myself, spent a lot of time trying to make sense of Meyers Technical Brief, and I did initially look into this with an open mind. But ultimately there is so much flawed science and blatant pseudoscience that the reality is that Meyer was almost certainly a fraud.  And if you watch his video lectures (and you know your stuff), you will quickly come to realise that he is well out of his depth with the science and plainly just blagging it in front of an audience that don't know any better.

@FarrahDay

QuoteSome people, including myself, spent a lot of time trying to make sense of Meyers Technical Brief, and I did initially look into this with an open mind. But ultimately there is so much flawed science and blatant pseudoscience that the reality is that Meyer was almost certainly a fraud.  And if you watch his video lectures (and you know your stuff), you will quickly come to realise that he is well out of his depth with the science and plainly just blagging it in front of an audience that don't know any better.

I think pseudoscience may be just another way of saying "I do not understand" and many things which were initially rejected are now accepted as fact. For instance there can be no electrolysis without a closed circuit and electrodes and then a professor proceeded to burn salt water in a test tube with no electrodes in the presence of an RF source. Now what do you believe this say's about all the supposed experts who said this was pseudoscience and was not possible?.

Another, my favorite, was Down Wind faster than the wind simply because it is so damn intuitive why the concept cannot work. Then almost every single self-proclaimed expert called it pseudoscience,they called the inventors stupid and misguided but now we know different. In fact the hand full of people who developed the concept were the only ones who knew what in the hell they were talking about and all the experts were completely wrong.

I could go on for hours but I think you get the idea and as a professional person I do not discount anything until I have ALL the facts.

AC

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.03.03, 17:47:08
EX

Can you please try this experiment with your RF amps? If you haven't already.

Take two copper pipes of different diameters, and place one inside the other, thus forming a cylindrical capacitor, at low frequency, and a coaxial transmission line at high frequency.

Cut the length of the pipes to be 1/4 wavelength resonant, when distilled water is used as the dielectric, which has a relative dielectric constant of about 79.  

Then hook up to it and adjust the frequency to build up that standing wave voltage inside the pipes.  If you can operate at 30 MHz, the wavelength in pure water should be slightly over 1 meter, so 1/4 meter should be a reasonable length to work with.

EM

Each time I have used HF with an electrolyte, I got mainly heat, with no other particular effects. I have even tried to transmit with an electrolyte antenna: 1/4 wavelength pipe filled with salt water. The Q was very low, very bad in comparison with copper. I succeeded in contacting some stations hundreds km away (very funny when I announced my working conditions  :)), but nothing astonishing, it's possible even if only 1W was radiated while the transmitter would be outputting 100W.

So I'm not really ready to make experiments without strong clues suggesting something new. The relative permeability of water is high but unless using three times distilled water to make it less conductive, the conduction effects are by far predominant. Surely it's possible to buy high distilled water or to make it, but it's no more a simple experiment. And this condition is the only way to get a significant Q that allows to speak of "resonance". I can't believe that there would be a resonance with ordinary or simple distilled water even if the line length is correct.

@Exn

QuoteSo I'm not really ready to make experiments without strong clues suggesting something new. The relative permeability of water is high but unless using three times distilled water to make it less conductive, the conduction effects are by far predominant.

I would agree there are many fundamental problems which must be dealt with if one wants to produce specific effects within an electrolyte. The first is conduction which limits the build up of energy within the electrolyte itself and another, my nemesis, is Faraday's Pail. Whenever we try to invoke forces on the molecules themselves the charged state either conducts and dissipates or becomes a surface effect which is again counterproductive.

I believe these are major hurdles and have yet to find an easy answer to this problem. The question is how can one use an external force to produce singular effects on one species of particle but not so much another within an electrolyte, the whole of which constitutes an object in itself. The problem here is that when we start looking for answers we find there are none which gives us some indication of our level of understanding and the state of technology. I believe there must be a solution but I have yet to find it in the realm of electrodynamics.

AC

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.04, 08:56:42
Yes indeed, what you are suggesting is contrary to everything that Meyer ever said or wrote - not that I would trust a single thing that he ever said or wrote - but there certainly aren't thousands of amps running through that electrolyser on his workbench. And, if this was the case it would be more akin to JLNaudins Bingo Plasma Reactor and light up like a Christmas tree.

If you are interested, my more detailed thoughts on Meyer are here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1046.0

And the resonance thing is always a big issue. He wasn't using AC, but pulsed DC. There is also a 'blocking diode' in his schematics, so what was supposed to be resonating... and how?

Some people, including myself, spent a lot of time trying to make sense of Meyers Technical Brief, and I did initially look into this with an open mind. But ultimately there is so much flawed science and blatant pseudoscience that the reality is that Meyer was almost certainly a fraud.  And if you watch his video lectures (and you know your stuff), you will quickly come to realise that he is well out of his depth with the science and plainly just blagging it in front of an audience that don't know any better.

I see your initial intention.  The conversation from Loner was interesting.  

Resonance was an example to vision charge multiplication.  It may have been, but I don't think it's necessary.  The way I see it can be done is to charge an inductor to certain energy and discharge it to a path of low resistance.  The inductor will want to deplete its energy no matter how many charge it has to create.  If you want many amps through the water, you can decrease the effective resistance of water.  I found that it's similar to increase capacitance.  Its proportion is

C is approximately e(A/d) , e is dielectric, A is electrode surface area, d is electrode distance.  To increase C , we want high e, high A, and low d.  Of course this is to amplify charge through water, I'm not sure if gives better result.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.03, 19:43:24
However, this would be like pulling on the arms of a toy doll (or person) <wow, lol>
and having both arms come off the body at exactly the same time.
It's just not going to happen that way, one arm will come off first
leaving one arm still attached to the body (hope you like my analogy).

How I've missed your humor dear..., thank you.  :)
(Inactivity email beckoned me back, found this first)


Do you remember the silly video of someone trying to make something spiritual
out of some king of a crystal, and a static/HV generator, but it rained outside?

It was like a 1/2" copper plumbing pipe, with a crystal plopped on top,
the copper pipe was fed by something offscreen of an electrical nature...

(No doubt a neon transformer or something...)



None of the specifics are of any matter, just this one thing.

As the water (rain drops...) hit the crystal, they appeared to "steam",
and occasional sparks near the top lit the mixture, which stayed lit.

The camera man lost his (male voice) composure, woopee...,
but the flame did not go out for at least two minutes in the vid.


This seems like a pointless post, but I posit that there must be some combination of stuff fairly available freely, that when combined together, and stimulated in what we in our better judgement would consider pure bunk, causes an effect we just didn't expect, and don't have current rules for.

That vid always haunted me, a fluff, a poof, anything short would be just a chuckle,
but the darned (barely visible) flame just persisted in that vid for a fair while.

Why ?

The glass (outside furniture style) table eliminated a feed tube from being hidden,
the wire led from offscreen to a crimp connector up from the bottom on the outside
of the copper tube to a darned near stripped screw it seemed during cruddy close up.

The nitwit hailing the spiritual nature of the device seemed purely pissed it lit on fire...



My point is I am glad to see this thread, there has to be a way we haven't stumbled upon to do this.

I'll now read the previous five pages, but I know the first two or three already.

How is everyone ?  :)

Hi Folks,

I have been away from this forum for some weeks and would like to ask your opinion on the Kanarev method of splitting water, see here:
http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html (http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html)

I have not seen this method mentioned here, maybe was refuted?

Quote from the link: 

Thus, a small value of current 0.02 A and voltage 0.062 V allows us to suppose that in the low current electrolyzer the water electrolysis process is similar to the process, which takes place during photosynthesis. At photosynthesis, hydrogen separated from the water molecule is used as a connecting link while organic molecule formation, and oxygen is released in the air. At low current electrolysis, both hydrogen and oxygen are released in the air. Fruitfulness of this attractive hypothesis should be checked not once, but now it is the only one, which gives a satisfactory explanation of an unusual experimental result.
Note: gas release is clearly seen during several hours after the cell is disconnected from the line.




Thanks,  Gyula

I've often wondered about his reported gas release
continuing for some time after power is disconnected
from his test cell.

Could it be that those bubbles are the release of gas
which has dissolved in the water?  In much the same
way that a glass of cool water will, upon warming up,
release gas bubbles?

It is interesting that he was able to achieve electrolysis
at some level with such low voltage and current.

Quote from: gyula on 2013.03.06, 23:07:17
i would like to ask your opinion on the Kanarev method of splitting water,

The irrepressible Patrick has an interesting paper here:

http://www.free-energy-info.com/P17.pdf

Thanks for the link - the paper is most interesting.

Earlier the bubbles which can form between the
plates of an electrolyzer were discussed.  Here's
one man's report (http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/watergas.php) on what he's observed and his
theory about what it is.  It is often beneficial to
re-read articles from the past in order to formulate
new insights.  Some of us need to do this very
often as those dreaded Senior Moments occur
more and more frequently... :o

As far as George Wiseman from Eagle Research is concerned, I would err on the side of caution. Some of the things he says immediately trigger alarm bells- remember he is a businessman out to sell his electrolysers.

I for one am not at all comfortable with his Electrically Expanded Water theory, but it is articles like this that really give me cause for concern:  http://www.eagle-research.com/cms/blog/browns-gas/browns-gas-transmutation/browns-gas-transmutation

Wiseman links to this Youtube video.  Make what you will of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI2G7EpgNJY

PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING: The above video contains scenes of Sterling Allen that intelligent and educated people might find upsetting.  ;)

@Dumped

QuoteEarlier the bubbles which can form between the
plates of an electrolyzer were discussed.  Here's
one man's report on what he's observed and his
theory about what it is.

I think there is a great deal to consider and while the pseudosceptics would have us believe all the universe is bound to their opinion I believe there is still room for improvement. If we consider the electrolyte as a resistive media then we have problems because I have found that resistance is variable in the right context. The problem most sceptics have concerns ENERGY, not amps , not volts, not dielectrics nor conduction but ENERGY. In the right context a high rate of change of energy state can produce a travelling boundary condition which can travel over the surface of a standard resistor as well as through it. In which case all our wonderful formulas become a mute point and we must resort to electrostatics and wave theory.

It should come as no surprise that electrostatics and wave theory are the least understood areas of science and we can have conductors fail at any singular point or node where energy converges. In this case it does not seem so far fetched that similar effects might occur between two plates in an electrolyser because we know as a fact similar effects have been proven to occur in other media. Rather than dismiss everything outside the norm maybe we should revisit our theories to better understand what may be happening, who knows we might actually learn something.

AC

Greetings all,

We must all realise that we are working from incomplete data sets, that being said some data sets are more incomplete than others. Accurate analysis of incomplete data sets is at best sketchy, however, correctly designed apparatus to gather required data is possible and currently in process globally concerning the subject topic.

Electrostatics and wave theory is crucial to understanding behaviour of complex fluids and phase change characteristics, and the potential for exploiting the stored energy available. Localised instantaneous power is key to exploiting overload situations in this context, pressure and temperature changes combined with fluid velocity characteristics being the focus of my research. The LFV is a primary device in my opinion for exploring these properties and understanding them practically.

RIM.

evolvingape

Welcome to the forum.Your perspective is Quite refreshing !!
Thx
Chet

@evolvingape

Yes welcome to the forum, I was always interested in wave theory as well which led me to research concerning the Soliton wave which then led to the Rogue wave. The Rogue wave was considered mythical and anyone who even mentioned the name was ridiculed by the sceptics. Then with advances in technology such as satellite based surface radar and GPS atmospheric buoys the truth became evident. Rogue waves are not only a fact but fairly common and waves from 25 to 30m in height have been recorded. It is interesting to note that even today most experts cannot agree where they may occur nor why.

To put this in perspective, nobody can agree on a phenomena which 99% of the population still believes does not exist, such is life.

Now if one were to find an electrical/mechanical equivalent to a rouge wave that would be very interesting.

AC

I do not know anything about a Soliton wave, or a Rogue wave, my data set is incomplete. Maybe I do know about said subjects and I don't realise I do as the terminology is different and therefore non relative to me. To be is to be related.

Your electromechanical analogy is appropriate and is a major focus of my attention. This is a very deep subject and one can get lost, so it is logical to offer a common denominator and for me this is rotational power systems. If you will allow me to indulge...

Energy -> Power -> Potential Energy -> Power -> Energy

In a rotational system the input side and the output side of the process are inverted, the process conversion losses are apparent at the beginning and the end to achieve similar units for measurement comparison. The true potential output of overunity, if any, is at the first stage of the output process which is power, and in a rotational system is manifest as RPM and Torque as measurable properties. To do work... is what I care about.

RIM.

The rogue wave occurs from the heterodyning of 2 waves eclipsing each other. Correct speed, angle, pressure, and height are parameters that are necessary. The pressure can be intensified/modulated by sound also. And this all happens naturally and random. But the random is a count of every seventh wave for those that know the sea.

Interesting,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodyne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Open_system

So how do we manipulate a fluid, in this case the water molecule, to release the energy previously stored during it's creation ?

How do we analyse such a system with respect to open and closed thermodynamic system theory ?

RIM.

We're focusing on the incorrect topic,  forget about dissociation of water molecules,  focus on COMBINATION of water molecules!  That's is what's important!   :D


I was almost killed by a rogue wave in California.  I was body surfing when a huge wave developed and it slammed me down from like 10 feet, bent me in half like a twig (backwards) just about broke my back!.  Very scary!

EM

EM,

So it would seem you are a daredevil not only in your research, but in everyday life too!  :D

According to Gustav Flaubert, you should:

"Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work".

EM, I too am aware of the dangers of a rogue wave. A while back someone waving goodbye to their kid at the school gates got a bit over-exuberant and nearly took my eye out!  :)

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.03.09, 02:15:26
We're focusing on the incorrect topic,  forget about dissociation of water molecules,  focus on COMBINATION of water molecules!  That's is what's important!   :D

EM

To my mind we cannot separate the two sides of the system in that way, dissociation is just as important as recombination.

The HELP was designed to add the properties of fluid velocity and pressure to a dynamic electrolysis cell. The question then arose what to do with that fluid flow which is where HELIS came from, becoming the input to the HELT.

I thought I could further improve the system which is why the SEC came into existence, effectively removing the fluid velocity from the equation while maintaining the pressure.

The LFV designed to pulse and shape the recombination of the Hydrogen and the Oxygen creating a pressure wave that would then be compressed in the RotoMax.

The idea behind all this being that dissociation of the water molecule gives you a volatile fuel, the recombination creating a pressure wave that could then be used to violently impact the water molecule inside the rotor, hopefully causing further dissociation of unprocessed water.

Dissociation -> Spark -> Recombination -> Dissociation

There are different types of dissociation though, heat will cause phase change to steam (energetic water vapor gas) and therefore expansion. Electrolysis causing dissociation to H + O creating the potential for violent recombination.

HHO -> Spark -> Pressure Wave -> Steam Expansion

Steam gives us a static pressure head, hence the critical valve opening time of a dump valve to maximise power. HHO gives us a dynamic velocity head, creating a pressure wave, and can be triggered by a spark.

When we also move into Electrical territory and consider variables such as electrical resistance of the water molecule we do not know how that will change when exposed for a short time to an extremely violent environment. HELIS was designed to test for this by adding the variables velocity, pressure, expansion and contraction. It's a very complex subject and we need data, lot's of it.

RIM.

That was 10 years ago, now I have more fun in the lab, not sure about original and violent work, but it's fun and orderly. Good advice there, however, danger wise, I'm probably safer swimming in the ocean with the sharks!  Lol
Just bought a kV transformer for some good al Tesla fun, and lifter experiments later on.

EM

OK, I suppose, since we're on the topic of Rogue Waves
that it's time to add some new sizzle to the terminology.

Back in the "Old Navy" we had a segment of the organization
which was completely female.  Any ladies who wished to
become part of the Navy were within that segment and
were known as "Waves."

I shall leave it to you to come to your own understanding
of how delightful it was to encounter a Rogue Wave.

Sadly, female sailors in the new Navy are no longer Waves.

On a slightly more serious note, has anyone been watching the latest antics regarding a certain Jon Abel vs Mystic Murakami over on the 'dark side'?

All the guy claimed to have done was recreated Meyer-like resonance and be producing hydroxy very efficiently, and was simply posting his results. Of course, due to standing his ground and speaking his mind, he is now banned from EF by the quack, come charlatan, come scam artist that is Aaron Murakami.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/13512-new-stan-meyer-replication.html

I noticed the argument, but do not know the history. I am interested in the subject supposedly under dispute though... Nitrogen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionized-air_glow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitriding

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2781-wood-gasification-4.html#post218210

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSXcV-r1Ifs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_plasma_thruster

http://www.overunity.com/11318/plasmics/msg303459/#msg303459

The potential for Nitrogen Plasma, easily and abundantly sourced from the atmosphere, to be used to create a secondary reaction in an engine is intriguing.

The idea behind the PRotoMax Plasma Repulsor is not dissimilar to the basic design of the Pulsed Plasma Thruster used in space craft propulsion. I replaced the solid fuel propellant with the design of the Linear Firing Valve, enabling the HHO blastwave (similar to the Marchlabs M13 operation) to travel through the plasma chamber and be injected into the engine. Interestingly you can see a note that water vapor plays a role in plasma when present, and the intended application for this repulsor is to split the water vapor molecules from a combination of ionic energy, in conjunction with momentary high pressure and temperature changes, and rapidly changing velocity's. It may also be possible to accelerate a water droplet in this manner similar to Pulsometer theory, providing relatively high mass (tennis ball) to absorb the energy and then slam it into the compression chamber of the rotor. That's some of the theory anyway...

RIM.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.10, 09:46:04
On a slightly more serious note, has anyone been watching the latest antics regarding a certain Jon Abel vs Mystic Murakami over on the 'dark side'?

All the guy claimed to have done was recreated Meyer-like resonance and be producing hydroxy very efficiently, and was simply posting his results. Of course, due to standing his ground and speaking his mind, he is now banned from EF by the quack, come charlatan, come scam artist that is Aaron Murakami.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/13512-new-stan-meyer-replication.html

Well i guess that;s the end of me over at EF.
Couldnt agree more with ya Farah

Yep, after that last post on EF, you will definitely be in his little red book of 'troublemakers' - you are likely on borrowed time there, Tinman.

The thing is you can never win an argument with Mystic Murakami because he will devote his life to twisting things, posting things out of context and manipulating posts and threads in order that he comes out smelling of roses... and then of course he bans you! On a personal note, I don't think I have ever detested anyone with quite as much passion as I do that slimy low-life.

Murakami claimed that Jon Abel's set up was not a Meyer replication because no nitrogen was involved. What a load of utter bollocks! There is no nitrogen involved in Meyer's early workbench WFC demonstration (a link to which I made a few posts back), and which, if Meyer is to be believed, is the very basis of everything that follows later.

It does make you wonder: who in their right mind would actually pay real money for the nonsense sci-fi/fantasy books written and peddled by this clueless idiot?  ???

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.10, 15:55:30
Yep, after that last post on EF, you will definitely be in his little red book of 'troublemakers' - you are likely on borrowed time there, Tinman.

The thing is you can never win an argument with Mystic Murakami because he will devote his life to twisting things, posting things out of context and manipulating posts and threads in order that he comes out smelling of roses... and then of course he bans you! On a personal note, I don't think I have ever detested anyone with quite as much passion as I do that slimy low-life.

Murakami claimed that Jon Abel's set up was not a Meyer replication because no nitrogen was involved. What a load of utter bollocks! There is no nitrogen involved in Meyer's early workbench WFC demonstration (a link to which I made a few posts back), and which, if Meyer is to be believed, is the very basis of everything that follows later.

It does make you wonder: who in their right mind would actually pay real money for the nonsense sci-fi/fantasy books written and peddled by this clueless idiot?  ???

Well borrowed time or not,i say what i  think.
I took the time to read the whole post,and could see exactly what the outcome was going to be befor i got to the end.
To kick some one off a forum just because they didnt agree with him-is just a sign of cowardness,and a total abuse of power.

Aaron has one of the biggest ego's I've ever encountered.

The trouble is, he has nothing to back that huge ego up with.

I've had my run-ins with him as well, a number of years ago. End result was, I stopped posting there (self-banning), then they deleted my account.

@ Ramset/tinman, tell Jon he is welcome here if he so desires to join OUR.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.03.10, 17:09:14


@ Ramset/tinman, tell Jon he is welcome here if he so desires to join OUR.

Not sure how to get intouch with him now that he has been baned ?
He would be welcome over at IAEC aswell.
Maybe Chet know's how to get intouch with him?

Try sending him a PM at EF. That should still be enabled if he is on read-only.

This is his email:  jonabel1971@gmail.com

I have email him.
It would be good to have another hydroxy person aboard,as i am about to give my new setup it's first run tomorrow.
Im looking to get a 35 to 40% increase in fuel efficiency to start with,then start trying some add on's to the system.
I have already made 25%,and that was with a realy shabby cell.

OK,

I have pre-registered Jon using the email Farah supplied.

Welcome to the forum
We have some excellent measurement Men here as well as some good test protocol for your Gene Gene Settup.
When I get home later I will see if I can get that for you !

Thx for sharing your work !

Chet

Nah
I was just winged ,Merely a flesh wound!!Your a pretty feisty fellow!!  O0
I have some work I'm trying to finish ATM...

Later
Chet

Amazing work you have done there !!

Here is a brief How to On your Genegene measurement technique!
We have a moderator here ION ,he has a fixed loss to ambient protocol !

get your self a fairly large card board box  a killowatt meter and two thermometers .put the whole set up inside the box,hook it up to a watt meter ,note the  temp inside the box and out side the box.
plug it in.

Run the device until the temp in the box will no longer rise against ambient loss ,note that temp,it is your "mark"
now repeat the same test with the bulbs plugged  directly into the mains [via the watt meter]

if you come even close to the same temp [loss to ambient] at 1/4 the input.
do the happy dance...........

Any questions?

thx
Chet

The discussion which Jon began at EF goes on
without him. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/13512-new-stan-meyer-replication-7.html#post226998)

It is very healthy to see that some members are
taking issue with Erron over the way he conducted
himself.

Erron's efforts at after-the-fact-damage-control
seem to be arousing suspicion.

Jonabel,
Welcome ,there sure is a lot of previous controversy about you  as there always will be with any kind of "claim" percieved or otherwise and im sure that the best way foward here is to post the specifics and some here ,perhaps myself included may replicate ,if that is your intention.
I did try to find specifics but could not be sure which was your s and which was reference material .

so many times somebody post some real info and it is reposted to make it clearer ,only to introduce another error and so on ..and so on .

Can I ask that you start here from scratch and post the specifics very carefully ,and be sure there are no errors .We will see if this crew  can keep the childish /personal stuff out of the equasion.

There are many experienced and talented people here and as long as your system is not in the "way too hard to make basket" I'm pretty sure that colaberation will follow . If not,  you will know did your best

Here's hoping for a new start

Lindsay

Welcome jonabel1971

I have also set you up your own bench area where you can moderate your own stuff, we tend to use the workbench area for documenting our own builds and various personal stuff.

The Bench Boards can be found on the home page at botton of the page.

Peter

Hi Jon, welcome

I just looked at some of your videos and read the account at PESN   

http://pesn.com/2012/06/18/9602112_Volunteer_Jon_Abel_banned_from_NDSU_for_Stanley_Meyers_lab_research/


very interesting.  it should serve as a lesson to others.  Don't deal with universities, they don't operate like we might imagine.  It is tempting to try and get that validation from some professor, and a kind professor can always be found, however by far, most are driven by reputation, publications, and research money.  You impact the money flow and you're out.    Research universities are supported by tuition, yes, but more so by research grants from wealthy corporations, and state funds, and they have to keep up a certain reputation.   Plus the Professors don't want to tarnish the reputation of their institution or it will hurt their pocket book in the end.  Lots of politics going on at the University, I would steer clear of any involvement with them.  We have our professor here who can tell you his story.

Besides, you can do this research in your garage, just make sure you have ample ventilation, or you'll blow yourself up like that guy in California.

EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.03.12, 04:28:47
...Don't deal with universities, they don't operate like we might imagine.  ...

I see Mystic Murakami has 'unbanned' Jon. Perhaps Aaron has finally realised just what a silly boy he has been  - guess there's a first time for everything.

For anyone that was following that debacle over at EF, the whole issue seemed to revolve around Murakami's insistence that Nitrogen featured heavily in Meyer's WFC work and indeed was the key to running his buggy on just water.

Well, if anyone has ever seen or read Meyer's technical brief:

The Birth of New Technology
WATER FUEL CELL
Technical Brief

HYDROGEN FRACTURING PROCESS
by Stanley A. Meyers

You will know that Meyer never once, ever, mentions Nitrogen. He talks about re-circulating exhaust gases and the use of non-combustible gases in ambient air, but he never talks specifically of Nitrogen gas. But this aside, the key thing is that Meyer states he basically uses the non-combustible gases in air and the exhaust simply to dilute the Hydroxy gas in order to slow the burn rate down to that of gasoline. Nowhere does he talk about ionising Nitrogen or using Nitrogen to create another fuel, which is what Murakami is alluding to.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5247-ionization-water-fuel-26.html

Murakami claims that in order for Hydrogen to be of any use, it first has to be reacted with Nitrogen to form a less explosive gas, Ammonia (NH3).  His argument was the quantity of Hydrogen produced was not so important, the important thing was the formation of Ammonia.  The key flaw in this argument was that the production of Ammonia would be directly related to the production of Hydrogen - something that Murakami either couldn't seem to get his head around or chose to overlook. Either way it illustrates his lack of understanding and failings in his education. Another reason stated by my old sparring partner, Mike J. Nunnerley, that Hydroxy could not be used in an ICE was that as it contained atomic Hydrogen, and that this tiny atom would slip past the piston rings into the sump so not only be ineffective, but eventually blowing up the engine.  However, aside from the fact that atomic hydrogen is actually volumetrically larger than in molecular form, all gas molecules take up the same space at any given temperature or pressure, so this is nonsense and a non-issue.

The details are so important, and more often than not the science in the details is the key - make or break.  But all too often the details are conveniently overlooked or worse still, totally ignored.

So, in a nutshell, Jon was correct in what he was saying whilst Murakami was blatantly wrong. But most of us here have been banned from EF by Murakami so we already know he has his own agenda... and it has more to do with FREE Money than Free Energy. He is a total disgrace to his forum and the Free Energy movement he purports to champion. 

Farrah
let me ask you a question?

Do you ever feel it would be possible for us as a group to comply with certain standards?
could you ever perceive a fresh start,a line in the sand where we would just proceed towards a common goal?

sometimes your comments hit me where It hurts .....and I am not even speaking of comments to me!!

I am not a woose or timid man,however the comments you made to Centraflow about his son brought some tears to my eyes.

I can abide differences  amongst us ,I can feel the passion of science and the long held opinions about Meyers or Puharich or the price of tea in China.

Can we put a line in the sand when it comes to family or credentials or things that ultimately have little baring on the "work"?
if the work is off the mark ,point that out the way 99 or ION do,maybe we post a link to certain areas that cover measurement issues?and misinterpretations of science at "profound levels "??

a group hug is out of the question...however this rock we stand on and our time allotted here does not wait for us ....

Tick toc tick toc.........

------------
The other thing is we don't have many chemists among us.........[Girls Neither]

?
Thx
Chet

Quote from: Rosphere on 2013.03.12, 10:48:45

Abstract:
A speech, a vague theory outside of the physics, a prophet criticizing the academic knowledge, theorizing without predicting the least new fact, saying the good words and selling books at a high price.
Nothing else here.

Quote from: ramset on 2013.03.12, 15:30:48

sometimes your comments hit me where It hurts .....and I am not even speaking of comments to me!!

I am not a woose or timid man,however the comments you made to Centraflow about his son brought some tears to my eyes.

Chet

It was not me that bought up his personal life, I did not bring up his son - he did!

There are some things that you shouldn't bring to the table, and our personal lives is one of those things. In my experience the people who do bring their personal lives to the attention of strangers are the people looking for the sympathy vote... and nothing else. I find this very underhanded.

But you are completely overlooking the issue. MJN has made many claims to have built this, that and the other many years ago, but he never actually provides any details, no photos, no specifics, just generalisations that mean or amount to nothing. I remember him once claiming that Audi had stolen his work, and that a patent someone found was his work that had been stolen.  Just bullshit, Chet, bullshit that many gullible folk at EF bought into.

The None Electrolytic... thread on EF promised much, but amounted to didly-squat (as I always knew it would). Yet he had folk buying parts for a heterodyning amplifier and the thread went on for ever without even a schematic or anything to support that he even had any idea what he was talking about - which he didn't. Eventually he started talking about his SMD electrolyser in a vain attempt to rejuvenate the thread. The thing is Chet, I know him for what he is. He thrives in the limelight and ultimately hopes that someone will actually get working something that he will later claim to be the inventor of.

It's all here:  http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6431-none-electrolytic-splitting-h2o.html

All 600-odd pointless posts!

Wasn't multiple choice [the question]...

Can we Start fresh? the world around us really does race beyond belief,what may have been Nothing yesterday could well become the best thing since sliced bread tomorrow.[or canned beer [don't go there]]

I have heard it said there is nothing new under the sun,the more you know the less you know!
I believe we will be revisiting things that were believed a waste of time in the past?

Just a thought Farrah,We share the same rock!
although it does grow smaller.....
thx
Chet

If you've learned anything Chet, it should be that we share the same 'rock' as the charlatans, the scam artists and the 'know-nothing' wannabes. You are too sensitive, you let emotion cloud your judgement, you always have... I do not!

I gave Mike the chance to make amends when he posted on the 'Kanzius salt water burning' thread. He immediately reverted to type by avoiding questions and posting in Spanish. Open your eyes Chet, the world is not the warm, fluffy place you seem to think it is... and thinking nice thoughts won't change things!

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.12, 18:36:00

There are some things that you shouldn't bring to the table, and our personal lives is one of those things. In my experience the people who do bring their personal lives to the attention of strangers are the people looking for the sympathy vote... and nothing else. I find this very underhanded.

If you insult me indirectly like that again I will take it personal. You have no concept of what I actually am, have experienced, or intend. Your experience is limited, as is all of ours.

RIM.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.12, 16:31:52
Abstract:
A speech, a vague theory outside of the physics, a prophet criticizing the academic knowledge, theorizing without predicting the least new fact, saying the good words and selling books at a high price.
Nothing else here.

Thank you for re-posting the Gerald Pollack video.  There is a patent image shown at the eight minute mark, but it has nothing to do with water molecules, (which is unusual for Gerald,) so I did not expand on that here.  It was posted only in reference to EM's universities comment.  Coincidentally, Gerald has done some work with water himself, but more of the associative kind: structured water.  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1676.msg28842#msg28842 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1676.msg28842#msg28842)

Jon
Perhaps?
and then there is also the fact that organic chemistry as well as inorganic chemistry are vastly different and most chemists
are usually one or the other?
however nowadays it would seem there is much to learn in these areas ?
Thx
Chet

ere come the emotions . ... be kind to each other

Quote from: evolvingape on 2013.03.12, 23:36:28
If you insult me indirectly like that again I will take it personal. You have no concept of what I actually am, have experienced, or intend. Your experience is limited, as is all of ours.

RIM.

What!?  ??? I don't know who you are, what you are referring too or indeed why you think I was insulting you indirectly or otherwise.

I was talking about MJN (Centraflow) who is extremely good at leading people on wild goose chases. I have no reason to insult you, but those that know me know that if I was insulting you I would not be doing it indirectly. So, unless you are MJN's alter ego you have no reason whatsoever to post this.

Quote from: jonabel1971 on 2013.03.13, 02:00:09
So, Farrah Day, are you gonna give it all away?  Or be rich? 

Give what away?

I have the latest from Aaron at ef,in reguards to his water powered jet engine -using Stans tek.
Quote:-i can run between 88% and 98% water.
Quote: i can use as little as .1 to .9 psi of propane-  Huh?

Can some one please convert this to ltr's of propane per minute for me? ,I know the head preasure of the propane,but cant work out the flow rate at this preasure?
How is this an accurate measurement ?-and coming from the throne sitter over there.

Ouch!!
Sorry, I just tripped over your stone pile.....

Sometimes its hard to understand the dynamics of a Jet engine and what "power" actually looks like.
as you may know I started my trip through life in Aircraft .

And as you also Know even an ICE can appear to run on nothing when "forced induction" is involved ,run away 2 stroke diesels with no apparent fuel [until you find the empty crank case]]

good question,[I'll get back to you]
Thx
Chet

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.13, 14:27:43
I have the latest from Aaron at ef,in reguards to his water powered jet engine -using Stans tek.
Quote:-i can run between 88% and 98% water.
Quote: i can use as little as .1 to .9 psi of propane-  Huh?

Can some one please convert this to ltr's of propane per minute for me? ,I know the head preasure of the propane,but cant work out the flow rate at this preasure?
How is this an accurate measurement ?-and coming from the throne sitter over there.

Tinman, I honestly wouldn't waste my time with him, you will just get the run around, and never be provided with any details that matter (or would matter if there is any truth behind his claims) - you will just be led on another classic wild goose chase! You will just become frustrated.

You will note that Murakami bases all of what he claims on one thing, this being that Meyer actually knew what he was talking about in the first place. This - in my opinion - is a major mistake as it is quite clear that Meyer had little grasp on the science involved. And this is there for everyone to see throughout his technical brief.

Meyer's idea of recirculating exhaust gases (non-combustible gases) and adding these, along with ambient air into the hydroxy mixture was purely in an attempt to reduce the burn rate of hydrogen to that of gasoline in order that it would run an ICE.  So clearly we are limited by the amount of hydrogen produced at the very first stage. LATER Meyer talks of increasing the energy output by ionising all these gases, in the gas processor, but of course this then negates the idea of slowing the burn rate down for use in an ICE.  ???  If Murakami wants to treat Meyer's technical guide as a bible, then that's up to him, but it's a big problem as it's full of holes. If you have a copy of Meyer's technical brief, let me bring to your attention pages, 9-8 (Spaceship Earth) and 5-12 (Energy Aperture of the Atom) where he has a diagram of an atom being a 'universal energy pathway' to 'other dimensional universes' - what this has to do with anything is anyone's guess! Meyer also relies on the dielectric constant of water throughout his technical brief, repeatedly quoting a figure of 78.54 (sometimes in ohms). But we all know that this figure is absolutely meaningless in regards to any water other than pure water produced in strictest laboratory conditions.  So care must be taken with Meyer, and judgement calls need to be made on what is real and what is not. As far as Murakami goes though, he is a total waste of time and not worth the effort of even conversing with.

From Murakami:

Quote300-500% Faraday. It is because of the conditioned tubes. There is a hydrogen loading process on the negative electrodes along with the calcium and magnesium oxides that plate on there. They act as a dielectric. The magnesium oxide itself has a dielectric strength of 10-30kv/mm.

Anyway, as hydrogen is loaded into that plate, it is released later. Then you only have to make up the loss and you can beat Faraday by several hundred percent. You could consider that cheating but so what? It works.

Not sure why so many people can't get this coating and wind up with garbage in their water. I don't have those problems and it does it every time

Yet more absolute twaddle. 'Hydrogen is loaded on the plate and released later'... what?  Make up what loss? And this beats Faraday by several hundred percent... how?! 'You could consider it cheating'...  ???

Is this seriously, really the extent of his understanding... and he writes books on this stuff.  :o  The mind boggles! His book, 'Water Fuel Secrets' must be a real eye-opener.  C.C

It's when I see this kind of childish garbage posted by a self-proclaimed Spiritual Leader, Free Energy Guru and self-important know-it-all that I get a tad annoyed. It also upsets me that so many people buy into his nonsense and let themselves willingly be led by him to the Land of Make Believe.

Hi folks,

Must say that i also still enjoy the discussion on how to run an engine on water.
My 2 not important cents are that everybody must realize what Stan Meyer said in certain video's.
He said himself that he dropped, with help, a couple of patents. He had to work around the truth, because he knew that he wouldn't get a patent on his technology.
The person who helped him, had worked for a patent office or had a lot of experience with patents. Cannot remember that fact in detail anymore.
So what does this mean? Anybody here with patent experience?
Its not that complex. You write your idea on paper and show a POSSIBLE way on how to achieve this.
I know what you are thinking right now. You seen the pictures made by Don. I have those as well. You see the VIC.
Its because of me that the video of Meyer, interviewed by my friend, became public. Stan clearly shows his Bug.
As far as I know, Stan really tried to hide the real technology.
May i suggest you all focus on the idea,s. Yes, get hydrogen. Yes, ionize ambient air. Yes, get an update ignitionsystem.
Maybe inject waterdrops.  The idea's are right. Now just understand how to make those real.
Example: ionizing ambient air. How is that done in Stans patent? Two tubes and some leds....
You all know better. You do not ionize air with two tubes. Not even in Stans days...

Again, these are my 2 cents. Do with it what you want.

Steve

Nice 2 cents, Stevie.

As far as patents go, there are cart loads out there that are just ideas, some more fantastical than others, so the patent thing is all a bit mysterious to me. However, it seems pretty pointless (if you do have something that really works) not to patent the actual working device. I mean, if you provide false details, this surely gives you little or no protection over the real world working device. So why bother patenting in the first place? I do find it all a little suspicious, to say the least.

I know I always harp on about Meyer's technical brief being so much gobbledegook, but I also always say that I'm not averse to the idea of a WFC in principle. I think it is better to look at ways of achieving what you think needs to be done rather than trying to replicate anything specific from Meyer's patents.

And if people wonder why I'm always slagging off Meyer's technical brief, then they really should get a copy. In fact we do need to see if we can find a copy somewhere in pdf format so everyone can make their own judgements. I have a hard copy (over 200 A4 pages), but nothing on disk.

Yeah, I have watched all the videos and I do find them extremely hard work, and I also find what he says quite hard to swallow.

All this said, it was Meyer that first spiked my interest in this field so I guess I owe him that much.  Sadly though, given the incorrect terminology, unscientific terms and indeed the odd piece of blatant pseudoscience, it is quite understandable why scientists viewing his lectures or reading his technical brief would view him as nut-job or a fraud and give him a wide berth.

And for anyone who is interested, for anyone who wants to be able to make their own judgement, here's a link to Meyer's HYDROGEN FRACTURING PROCESS, the technical brief: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.free-energy-info.co.uk%2FMeyerData.pdf&ei=S8ZAUYrNBcev0QWlq4GABA&usg=AFQjCNHNmxgK01UIpwfmjBpCsf5ItO_B_w&sig2=qJXO0MtzCpkctUU06DSn3g

Download it now in case it disappears.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.13, 18:16:06
Nice 2 cents, Stevie.

As far as patents go, there are cart loads out there that are just ideas, some more fantastical than others, so the patent thing is all a bit mysterious to me. However, it seems pretty pointless (if you do have something that really works) not to patent the actual working device. I mean, if you provide false details, this surely gives you little or no protection over the real world working device. So why bother patenting in the first place? I do find it all a little suspicious, to say the least.

I know I always harp on about Meyer's technical brief being so much gobbledegook, but I also always say that I'm not averse to the idea of a WFC in principle. I think it is better to look at ways of achieving what you think needs to be done rather than trying to replicate anything specific from Meyer's patents.

And if people wonder why I'm always slagging off Meyer's technical brief, then they really should get a copy. In fact we do need to see if we can find a copy somewhere in pdf format so everyone can make their own judgements. I have a hard copy (over 200 A4 pages), but nothing on disk.

Patents have commercial values. You never reveal all details in a patent to protect your findings. I agree with you that that system is a bit weird..

About Meyers tech brief, i have two originals on the shelf here. Different ages. Some differences between them. One with more mambo jambo (religious statements and such) then the other. Stan was adjusting the paper thru the years, which is what i also would do. I scanned both of them. They are available for the ones who want them.

If you look for Horvarth, Andersen and Meyer, then you see what the tricks are to run an IC on water. You also notice that they all did the same. The first had the most practical patents from my point of view.

What most people are doing and what i did previous years where two things.
1. trying to improve electrolysis with modern technology.
2. trying to use HV with low amps, aka the Meyer system.

Now think for a moment.
HV and water don't go well, so improving electrolysis stops somewhere around 150% faraday. (my own experience)
So where do the stories of HV coming from? How did these dudes drove their cars on water in an overunity situation?
Does voltage really perform work?
Voltage works in the known technology of ionization. So, ionize the hydrogen. That process does not consume much power, but doubles at least your hydrogen power, when you use it to go from H2 to H1. Do the math. H2 para hydrogen, H2 ortho hydrogen, H1. Three stages with increasing state of energy. A state that doesn't stay long in that form, btw. Just a 0.3 second.
Quality, not quantities of hydrogen isotopes.

To be very clear for the newbies: i talk about HYDROGEN. Not HHO. Do NOT ionize HHO. Is dangerous. It kills you.

I am not going to tell you that i know it all.  I am just busy to translate all bs into normal science, like you, Fara day. Thats what i appreciate in you and thats what makes your posts worth reading.

Steve

ps...

A very important thing in the Aaron Murikami behavior discussion is the fun part of doing science tests.......

I hope that Aaron finds that part back.
Not really energetic in balance, from my point of view.... ;)

The reason i have been asking questions in relation to hydroxy system's,is because i have built a test bed for hydroxy experimenting.
Now im not trying to achieve running an ICE on hydroxy alone,but rather see how far i can bring up the fuel economy.
The first couple of timed run's indicate a 23% increase in run time with the hydroxy system activated.So now i would like to try and stretch that a bit further.
I also need a good flashback arrestor-home made ofcourse.

My other question would be-dose ionizing the air realy do anything to decrease the burn rate of HHO ?/
If so,then dose anybody have a good design for an ionization system?.Im more than happy to try all idea's. I was thinking of trying some sort of tank circuit,where as the cell is the capacitor-just a thought.But anyway,here is a short run of the system.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhJzOHtMcCY

I'm not convinced by the air ionisation argument or that Meyer's patents regarding this would even work.

When we ignite H2 in O2, the energy is released when the elements reform as the water molecule. People like Murakami argue that by ionising the gases and then igniting these ionised gases that the natural formation of the water molecule will be prevented and that other reactions will somehow create more 'thermal explosive energy' rather than the 'pop' you get when H2 ignites in O2.  Of course this is all just conjecture and I'm yet to see any science to support anything like this.

But there are also quite obvious problems with such ideas: firstly it takes energy to ionise gases in the first place, and secondly once you ionise the air/gases, you will get current flow. Think about this. You build up enough voltage between two conductive plates to ionise the air in between and you will create an electrical arc - a plasma spark.  And this spark will certainly ignite the H2, so you would simply blow up the gas chamber.  Most (if not all) of Meyer's diagrams and indeed peoples interpretations of the gas ionisation process are over-simplistic, and as such, in reality neither practical or workable.

Quote from: Stevie1001 on 2013.03.13, 22:22:34

To be very clear for the newbies: i talk about HYDROGEN. Not HHO. Do NOT ionize HHO. Is dangerous. It kills you.

Steve

Very good advice Steve, an acrylic HHO cell makes quite a frag grenade, even at low power.

The key to power in my opinion, in order to do work, when utilising hydrogen is in the deflagration to detonation transition process. It is preferable to cut out the middleman and go straight to detonation utilising the concept of Time = 0. Shaping the resultant pressure wave is fundamental in fluid dynamics to avoid turbulent flow of the fluid and a loss of efficiency, also the potential propagation of a shockwave. I see no reason to build specific apparatus to test for these factors when the reactions themselves are capable of doing work when properly incorporated into an engine. As a garage inventor the resources to accurately collect the data are often beyond your capabilities, however a change in a single variable will show as a change in overall system efficiency at the power output stage and is therefore registered even if not understood in detail. I find it puzzling that the above has been ignored, considering I have posted the information and the designs for this technology in this thread already.

RIM.

Oh
how I love the possibilities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTKV26KyLk

The pieces that can creep into a puzzle ........

Thx
Chet

Make this into a helmet and the ego dissipates!

Quote from: giantkiller on 2013.03.14, 02:28:01
...
Make this into a helmet and the ego dissipates!

And there is a way for free energy:
- let live these people at the highest floor of a building
- when they are very fat, use their potential energy by moving them down to the ground floor
- apply the ultra sound treatment
- move them upstairs again to repeat the cycle. As they are lighter during ascent than descent, there is a positive gain!

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.13, 16:35:22
Tinman, I honestly wouldn't waste my time with him, you will just get the run around, and never be provided with any details that matter (or would matter if there is any truth behind his claims) - you will just be led on another classic wild goose chase! You will just become frustrated.

You will note that Murakami bases all of what he claims on one thing, this being that Meyer actually knew what he was talking about in the first place. This - in my opinion - is a major mistake as it is quite clear that Meyer had little grasp on the science involved. And this is there for everyone to see throughout his technical brief.

Meyer's idea of recirculating exhaust gases (non-combustible gases) and adding these, along with ambient air into the hydroxy mixture was purely in an attempt to reduce the burn rate of hydrogen to that of gasoline in order that it would run an ICE.  So clearly we are limited by the amount of hydrogen produced at the very first stage. LATER Meyer talks of increasing the energy output by ionising all these gases, in the gas processor, but of course this then negates the idea of slowing the burn rate down for use in an ICE.  ???  If Murakami wants to treat Meyer's technical guide as a bible, then that's up to him, but it's a big problem as it's full of holes. If you have a copy of Meyer's technical brief, let me bring to your attention pages, 9-8 (Spaceship Earth) and 5-12 (Energy Aperture of the Atom) where he has a diagram of an atom being a 'universal energy pathway' to 'other dimensional universes' - what this has to do with anything is anyone's guess! Meyer also relies on the dielectric constant of water throughout his technical brief, repeatedly quoting a figure of 78.54 (sometimes in ohms). But we all know that this figure is absolutely meaningless in regards to any water other than pure water produced in strictest laboratory conditions.  So care must be taken with Meyer, and judgement calls need to be made on what is real and what is not. As far as Murakami goes though, he is a total waste of time and not worth the effort of even conversing with.

From Murakami:
Yet more absolute twaddle. 'Hydrogen is loaded on the plate and released later'... what?  Make up what loss? And this beats Faraday by several hundred percent... how?! 'You could consider it cheating'...  ???

Is this seriously, really the extent of his understanding... and he writes books on this stuff.  :o  The mind boggles! His book, 'Water Fuel Secrets' must be a real eye-opener.  C.C

It's when I see this kind of childish garbage posted by a self-proclaimed Spiritual Leader, Free Energy Guru and self-important know-it-all that I get a tad annoyed. It also upsets me that so many people buy into his nonsense and let themselves willingly be led by him to the Land of Make Believe.

Well your mate Aaron moved all non related post to another thread,and then locked that thread-after he had the last say ofcourse.
I have to say Farrah Day-you were right. Once again he avoided showing any proof what so ever of his claim's.This guy is a true nut case,and he is incharge of a forum???

He has now started some new forum on how stan meyer's system worked-oh and you may only post if you agree with aaron's thoughts on how stans system worked.
This guy sounds more like hitler every day.But like you said Farrah Day-enough waisted time on him.

Yeah, Murakami is a strange creature. Obviously he has his own agenda and clearly the sole purpose of his forum is to promote his books and make money from the naïve and gullible, but his education is so lacking and his science so poor that I do wonder why more people can not see him for what he truly is.

Take this statement from the locked thread you referred to:

QuoteAnyone in this field knows that plain common ducted electrolyzed water gas will NOT sustain a flame. It gives you a loud quick pop and NOT a slow burning flame where you get any kind of combustion. Instead, you get a quick, fast, useless detonation which is unsuitable as the sole fuel for an ICE or burner.

To say this is absolute madness.  You CAN run an ICE on Hydrogen, this is a fact and has never been disputed - they did it in world war 2 when there was a petrol shortage for cripes sake!  Even the infamous Fast Freddy ran an ICE on hydroxy for around 30 seconds before the engine stalled due to his electrolyser being unable to meet the gas demands.  No, running an ICE on hydrogen is not the issue, the issue simply is (and always has been) producing enough of the stuff on-demand to meet the engines requirements.  Mind you, Murakami will also (still) tell you that hydroxy implodes when ignited - further promoting the implosion myth. There are a few of them over at EF that feed and add to each others bullshit. The main culprits that come to mind are: Murakami, Lindemann, MJN (Centraflow), Tutanka, then you get numerous devoted disciples that add support to these charlatans and defend their honour for all they are worth. Sad really  :(

Coatings and BS..................



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghhgUmGBjX8

One must be careful with these statements....

I saw the movies over at RWGResearch.   Russ openly shows that you can inhibit (quench) the flame by using small holes in a ceramic disk.    Aaron doesn't know what he's talking about - again. 

Meyer's quenching tube was a Teflon tube with about 10 needle size holes going through it and all gas lines were of this type of tube, it is a flash back arrestor.

Mike 8)

Vectors, frequencies, power factors and targeted molecules. It is not hard to do.
Except all my attempts are dangerous!  >:-)

Just had to paste this. A post made by Qvision on the 'New Stanley Meyer replication' thread in response to Murakami's appalling behaviour over at EF:

QuoteThis website is all about profit ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This website IS all about profit.

It is being run by insensitive people who take advantage of gullible people.

Lindemann's so-called 'electric motor secrets' was not worth buying at the time, there is nothing secret in there.

The mistitled 'quantum key' is hilarious, talk about misplaced self-aggrandisment.

And as for ESM and PATHS, two completely non-spiritual, profit-driven systems that are so far from their proclaimed value systems i KNOW they won't grow much beyond their current state.

Anyone who SELLS a supposed spritual self-help system is obviously a charlatan.

I am surprised David Wilcock (and his profit-driven ilk) isn't one of your financial partners.

Anyway, please delete my account as i cannot, in all conscience, be a part of something that is controlled by mild sociopaths.


Best to all,

QV.

Here, here!  :)

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.16, 12:08:24
Just had to paste this. A post made by Qvision on the 'New Stanley Meyer replication' thread in response to Murakami's appalling behaviour over at EF:

Quote
This website is all about profit ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This website IS all about profit.

It is being run by insensitive people who take advantage of gullible people.

Lindemann's so-called 'electric motor secrets' was not worth buying at the time, there is nothing secret in there.
...

Here, here!  :)

I'm not astonished that it's a scammers center.
When I said on Murakami's forum in a first post that nitinol efficiency was only 5% (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12086-perpetual-motion-reality-peter-lindemann-2.html), I was told by Lindemann "to not post" and "to stay away". Obviously my presence was a bad thing for their business. Only the naïve people with $$$ are welcome or those who swear allegiance to enter their court.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.16, 15:08:13
Here, here!  :)


I'm not astonished that it's a scammers center.
When I said on Murakami's forum in a first post that nitinol efficiency was only 5% (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12086-perpetual-motion-reality-peter-lindemann-2.html), I was told by Lindemann "to not post" and "to stay away". Obviously my presence was a bad thing for their business. Only the naïve people with $$$ are welcome or those who swear allegiance to enter their court.

Yep, I remember that.

As you say, pledge allegiance and swear to honour and obey thy great spiritual leader and you will be welcomed at EF with open arms. But, dare to ask searching questions, bring to attention obvious flaws or issues, or highlight any inconsistencies, and the wrath of his holiness will be brought to bear upon thee... shortly followed by banishment.

Thanks to EF member Danny B for posting
the following link:

New developments in inexpensive electrolysis
catalysts. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/29/technology-water-electrolysis-calalyst-calgary.html)

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.10.11, 10:14:13
I think because current is not flowing through the water (or electrolyte) itself. What I think is happening is that the diode is rectifying the applied EM signal and in doing so is producing a voltage across itself, just like a crystal radio. Any H3O+ or OH- ions in the vicinity of the diode legs will act exactly the same as those near the plates of an electrolyser and give up or take on charges. But the key thing is that this set up is relying on the tiny proportion of self-ionisation occurring in the water, and the tiny current is just flowing through the diode/s.

Looking into some other things, I stumbled upon Titanium Dioxide (TiO2). It is used in water purification. When exposed to UV light while in water TiO2 releases an electron in a photocatalysis reaction. The interesting thing about it is that the TiO2 is not depleted. The same TiO2 will perform its function in the process indefinitely without needing to be replaced.

So placing a diode terminal in a solution of water and TiO2 and exposing it to UV light may yield some interesting results.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tio2+photocatalysis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=tio2+photocatalysis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)
https://www.google.com/search?q=tio2+photocatalysis&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM28OE6dvLAhUX2mMKHU1LA-wQsAQIMA&biw=1024&bih=642 (https://www.google.com/search?q=tio2+photocatalysis&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM28OE6dvLAhUX2mMKHU1LA-wQsAQIMA&biw=1024&bih=642)

Scroll down a bit on the following link
http://zixilai.en.alibaba.com/product/702826000-0/Nano_Tio2_Liquid_Coating_Photocatalyst_Liquid_Coating.html (http://zixilai.en.alibaba.com/product/702826000-0/Nano_Tio2_Liquid_Coating_Photocatalyst_Liquid_Coating.html)

Where to buy TiO2
http://www.advancedmaterials.us/22N-0803A.htm


Edit: The interesting thing about it is that the TiO2 is NOT depleted.