TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"

[pomodoro]

Ed, don't you already have what you need? I know you are saying that you need to have more volts to get that certain voltage between each resonant cavity, and you need a better transformer, but surely you can achieve this high V by not having so many cavities in series. You have quite a few in series by the look of your videos. Why not just have 2 or three in series instead. The trannie voltage will then split by 2 or 3 instead of 6 or more.


Good one Tinman! You have been busy. Quite a different setup to the original experiments I see!


Beware of using carbon electrodes for under water arcs. You will be making 'water gas' (see wiki ) which is full of carbon monoxide, very poisonous!

[tinman]

Ed, don't you already have what you need? I know you are saying that you need to have more volts to get that certain voltage between each resonant cavity, and you need a better transformer, but surely you can achieve this high V by not having so many cavities in series. You have quite a few in series by the look of your videos. Why not just have 2 or three in series instead. The trannie voltage will then split by 2 or 3 instead of 6 or more.


Good one Tinman! You have been busy. Quite a different setup to the original experiments I see!


Beware of using carbon electrodes for under water arcs. You will be making 'water gas' (see wiki ) which is full of carbon monoxide, very poisonous!

The gas produced is COH2,and when burnt,the waste is Co2 and water.

Brad

[h20power]

Ed, don't you already have what you need? I know you are saying that you need to have more volts to get that certain voltage between each resonant cavity, and you need a better transformer, but surely you can achieve this high V by not having so many cavities in series. You have quite a few in series by the look of your videos. Why not just have 2 or three in series instead. The trannie voltage will then split by 2 or 3 instead of 6 or more.


Good one Tinman! You have been busy. Quite a different setup to the original experiments I see!


Beware of using carbon electrodes for under water arcs. You will be making 'water gas' (see wiki ) which is full of carbon monoxide, very poisonous!

Like I said and/or hinted too all of you have allowed yourselves to fall to far behind for me to even attempt to pull you up to speed. Water is being used as a resistor in the voltage intensifier circuit(VIC) thus when you start subtracting resonant cavities you also start decreasing the resistance in the circuit. This action of removing resonant cavities from the series array increases the load that will be placed on the VIC transformer and it will no longer have the ability to charge the capacitor as a result. I think I pointed this out when I had compared my work to that of Max Millers work as the only difference between our setups at the time was he had only wired two resonant cavities in series and I have ten resonant cavities wired in series. The result was his transformer could not charge the negative voltage and in fact it started putting out only positive pulsed DC voltage to his two resonant cavities wired in series. He had no offsetting energy under the curve and was thus pushing amps through his water bath. Now he lied to everyone and told people he wasn't pushing amps through his water bath but the screen shot of his oscilloscope told the truth to those whom know how to read it. In this article I wrote I go over this using photos of Max's and my own waveforms to show that Max is in fact pushing a lot of amps through the water bath: http://aetherforce.com/truth-open-source-inventors-perspective/.


Now the waveform I show in that article I too am pushing some amps through the water bath but nowhere near the amount Max is pushing as all that energy under the curve is subtracting from the energy above the curve. I have gotten my positive and negative voltages to be within 20 volts of each other and the current measurements taken with a micro amp meter shows that I am pushing just 0.6 mA through the water bath. That is not enough current to heat up the water and as a result the water temps follow the changing temperatures of the day. Again I posted that pdf file to help people but as I said you all have allowed me to move so far ahead of you that there is no more hope in any of you catching up now as most can't understand the information that is being talked about in that pdf file as it makes no sense to them with their current level of work on Meyer's technology. All of my talks about the need of balancing the negative and positive voltages simply doesn't make any sense to people so they chose to ignore it. Since no one ever bothered to buy the circuit I am using they don't have the ability to alter the waveforms as I do as a result. It's the same circuit Gunther shows everyone in the 2013 Global BEM interview video which is now going on five years old. You see everyone was given a chance to grow along with me but they refused due to the lies told to them by those so-called leaders of the hydrogen revolution. You all chose to listen to people whom were only getting 10-250 volts to their excitor arrays instead of someone like me who was getting 4.2 kv to his. And as I said before as I went on improving my results the forum leaders and group members sought to have me removed from their forums instead of trying to follow what it was I was doing and I was given the boot.


I have advanced so much with this technology that now when I speak about the inner workings of this technology it makes absolutely no sense to people. So, I again moved on and will attempt to bring this technology to the marketplace as then people will have a chance of being in full control of their own energy needs.


And to Tinman (Brad) if what you are doing now is putting co2 into our atmosphere then you might as well have found an oil deposit in your backyard for you will have become part of the problem I am trying to get rid of in cleaning up the mess we have made to our atmosphere with the use of fossil fuels. You have a consumable product now and I will not so how do you expect to compete with this technology in the open markets? Anyway I best stop posting on your thread as I know from experience just how annoying that can be.
Take care and best of luck to you.

[Magluvin]

And to Tinman (Brad) if what you are doing now is putting co2 into our atmosphere then you might as well have found an oil deposit in your backyard for you will have become part of the problem I am trying to get rid of in cleaning up the mess we have made to our atmosphere with the use of fossil fuels. You have a consumable product now and I will not so how do you expect to compete with this technology in the open markets? Anyway I best stop posting on your thread as I know from experience just how annoying that can be.
Take care and best of luck to you.

From what Ive studied, more co2 is causing a greening in plant growth. The more we tear down the treas and plants is far worse than Brad generating co2. They tend to concentrate on reducing co2 in the ways we hear but seem to ignore the processes necessary to keep co2 in check naturally.

I think we will see bigger issues than co2 claims like what is going on at Fukoshima Japan.  Look at the strange happenings with sharks, whales, and more strange appearances of deep see creatures on beaches.  In a recent news article Tepco plans a complete dump of the radioactive water into the ocean. Its been being drained into the ocean for years now. Even the winds carry the radioactive air toward the US and Canada. Not much talk about that. Russia and China dont seem to be complaining as its not going their way. There has been a quiet rise in thyroid cancers in Japan.  Im a bit worried about eating tuna as it mostly comes from the pacific. Its time to get personal radiation detectors. If you dig in on the subject, you will see what I see.

If some are getting so good at separating water into H and O, why not figure out a way to separate the C and the O from CO2?

Mags

[h20power]

From what Ive studied, more co2 is causing a greening in plant growth. The more we tear down the treas and plants is far worse than Brad generating co2. They tend to concentrate on reducing co2 in the ways we hear but seem to ignore the processes necessary to keep co2 in check naturally.

I think we will see bigger issues than co2 claims like what is going on at Fukoshima Japan.  Look at the strange happenings with sharks, whales, and more strange appearances of deep see creatures on beaches.  In a recent news article Tepco plans a complete dump of the radioactive water into the ocean. Its been being drained into the ocean for years now. Even the winds carry the radioactive air toward the US and Canada. Not much talk about that. Russia and China dont seem to be complaining as its not going their way. There has been a quiet rise in thyroid cancers in Japan.  Im a bit worried about eating tuna as it mostly comes from the pacific. Its time to get personal radiation detectors. If you dig in on the subject, you will see what I see.

If some are getting so good at separating water into H and O, why not figure out a way to separate the C and the O from CO2?

Mags

Okay since you want to get on world events then what about this ice shelf that just broke off into the ocean that is larger than Delaware? How do you suppose that is going to effect the ocean's currents dumping all of that fresh water into the ocean? My basic argument is why worry about something that is out of your control? Neither you or I can control what Japan is about to do all we can do at our level is try and live with it. Now as far as my ability to put and end to the use of fossil fuels well now that I might be able to do something about if the people rally behind this technology I have been working on since 2006. But I can't do anything about what Japan is getting ready to do nor can I do anything about that ice shelf that just broke off as the damage has already been done. All of this is taking my main point out of context.


What Tinman is doing right now, in my view, isn't a viable solution to the problems we face in our world today as this technology has a product that will be consumed. I asked a clear question in that how does this new technology compare to that of Meyer's technology, and which of the two technologies is the better solution to the problems we are facing right now? It's not a viable solution as it would be in direct competition with Meyer's technology which has no consumable products that need to be stocked up for later use. I understand that Meyer's technology has been one of the hardest technologies we have come across in trying to back engineer how it all works. Trust me many times I almost tossed in the towel. But once I got at the core science behind this technology I knew it was only a matter of time before I figured out how to go about building it all correctly. Having an understanding of the core science behind this technology is like knowing where you are going on a trip for once you know where it is you are heading you can plot a course from your starting point.


Now I shared this core science with the entire group in this forum but sadly not many have chosen to take a look at it and fewer still have actually tried to apply this core science towards understanding how Meyer was able to break the bonds of the water molecules via the science I shared with you all. Nope, it was treated as if I had handed all of you something that needed to be put in the trash. So, I moved on knowing I did my part in sharing the core science behind the patents to each and every member of this forum whom cared to download it. But mostly I find people making fun of the science I shared with everyone as they can't understand it and thus it must be something to be made fun of so that others also choose to pay it no mind. But like I said I can't be worried about something that is out of my control for I did my part in sharing that much needed information with all of you and it was your choice to use or not use that information I posted for all to have. I sleep well at night knowing I did my part as I showed another method to break the bonds of the water molecules outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method that I had found taking place in nature.


So, in this context I don't actually understand your argument other than being posted just for the sake of arguing as you pointed to things that are out of our control and we can really do nothing about. Sure co2 is good for plants but we live in balance with these plants as we put out co2 and plants put out o2, however plants don't like co, or any NOx gases and that is something we can work towards solving with this technology. We can also work towards us all becoming energy independent no longer having to pay any more energy bills for the energy we use with this technology again something that is in our power to control. The primary problem we are facing is we are using up all of our o2 converting it into some other gas with the use of any fuel that takes o2 out of our breathable air supply to oxidize that fuel. With Meyer's technology this is not the case as it produces all the o2 it needs for the complete combustion hydrogen or creation of h2o by a fuel cell. So, the use of this technology will allow our o2 levels to rise as no o2 is being used to create anything else but the water it started out with. I hope you can see my point now.