PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-11-29, 03:26:17
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Author Topic: DISSOCIATION OF THE WATER MOLECULE  (Read 132041 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
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"


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 69
Quote
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?

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


---------------------------
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
   
Group: Guest
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?

   
Group: Guest
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:
Quote
Just 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.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
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
   
Group: Guest
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!
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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?   ???
« Last Edit: 2013-03-03, 19:44:54 by Farrah Day »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
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
   
Group: Guest

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
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
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?  ???
   
Group: Guest
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.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
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.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
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

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1431

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.
   
Group: Guest
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?



   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2042
@FarrahDay
Quote
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 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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
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.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2042
@Exn
Quote
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.

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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
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.



   
Group: Guest
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 ?  :)


« Last Edit: 2013-03-04, 21:42:33 by CompuTutor »
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 929
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

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
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
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.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-11-29, 03:26:17