I see the Tinman has started a tutorial On a process to Break The Faraday Limit,
"Gas Production way over what was once thought possible "
Part 1. of the introduction here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8e7dOVzyTM
All comments welcome.
respectfully
Chet K
Here is video two in the series of video's to come,regarding this project.
Faraday's limit is an MMW of 9.28
We intend on breaking this limit by 230%+
Faraday's limit was set using low voltage-high direct current.
We will be using high voltage-low pulsed current,with a coil shorting circuit to obtain resonance between the cell and source(inductors primary).
This second video is of the cell reassembled after a good clean.
The first and second video provide all information about the cells design,and how all current leakage points where insulated as much as possible.
I am starting at the beginning,so as all interested in replicating,have all the required information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpG0q3TLHk
Brad
Pt 3 is the cell up and running.
We first set some bench marks for the cell,and find out what type of efficiency the cell has on both straight and pulsed DC.
I am still to make the displacement measuring part of the DUT,and so,in this video we are using a recalibrated o2 flow meter.The pill in the flow meter has been changed to suit HHO gas flow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KABL2LRP08w
Brad
Hi Brad
I wish you all the best with this
I covered it at Revolution Green
http://revolution-green.com/faraday-hv-hho-production/
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: tinman on November 20, 2016, 05:53:36 AM
Pt 3 is the cell up and running.
Brad
Looks interesting Brad, mind if I join you? I promise to do everything differently, LOL
Here is the start of my cell, never made one before and so would do it differently for the next one.
Drilling the holes: Stainless is tough stuff to drill and will raise quite a bur if you let it. The trick is to sneak up on the finished size with at least two pilot drills, then it is an easy debur of each side of each plate for each drilled hole.
Ron
I am posting the build to encourage fellow replicators. The 15 plates are only 304 Stainless but came in at $60 Canadian.
Purchased from Metal Super Markets.
The gasket material is 1/16 Neoprene from Western Equipment
The Weld-on 16 is primarily for plastics so I thought to try Gorilla Glue, it does wood, stone, metal and seems to be pretty good
The step in the end plates is where I only had that much material on hand. That is two pieces of 3/8 PVC glued together as when one puts the bolts outside the plates the end pates need to be strong.
Ron
@ Ron
Awsome job on the cell-and your first one 8)
Be good to see what sort of MMW you get from it,under normal DC conditions.
Brad
Quote from: markdansie on November 22, 2016, 10:07:56 AM
Hi Brad
I wish you all the best with this
I covered it at Revolution Green
http://revolution-green.com/faraday-hv-hho-production/
Kind Regards
Mark
Thanks Mark.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on November 20, 2016, 05:53:36 AM
Pt 3 is the cell up and running.
We first set some bench marks for the cell,and find out what type of efficiency the cell has on both straight and pulsed DC.
I am still to make the displacement measuring part of the DUT,and so,in this video we are using a recalibrated o2 flow meter.The pill in the flow meter has been changed to suit HHO gas flow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KABL2LRP08w
Brad
Tinman,
Once both measurement methods are complete, and you have stable and consistent runs, you might consider using a cold trap in the gas line to determine how much of the gas flow is water vapor. You could warm the gas flow after the cold trap to get it back to STP prior to your flow gauges.
Perhaps someone else can suggest an alternate way to dry the gas.
Just a thought...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on November 22, 2016, 06:29:07 PM
Tinman,
Once both measurement methods are complete, and you have stable and consistent runs, you might consider using a cold trap in the gas line to determine how much of the gas flow is water vapor. You could warm the gas flow after the cold trap to get it back to STP prior to your flow gauges.
Perhaps someone else can suggest an alternate way to dry the gas.
Just a thought...
PW
Hi PW
Yes,i already have a condenser,plus primary and secondary dryer's.
The water will also not rise above 30*C,as we are using a high voltage and low current.
I have seen too many video's ,where steam is poring out of the output tube,and they think it is all HHO.
No such error's will happen here.
I will also be subtracting 10% of gas volume from the end result -as an error buffer.
Brad
With HHO production it must be known that many previous researchers abandoned the idea because of the toxicity and the high cost imposed by regulations on disposal of the byproduct left in the cells.
Quote from: barbosi on November 23, 2016, 10:04:29 AM
With HHO production it must be known that many previous researchers abandoned the idea because of the toxicity and the high cost imposed by regulations on disposal of the byproduct left in the cells.
As we will be using high grade (316L) S/S,and no additives to the water,there will be no byproduct left in the cells.
All water conduct's,no matter how pure it is,as all water is full of H and O atoms.
The less conductive(higher purity)the water is,the higher the voltage we use.
And the higher the voltage we can use,the less current we need--and the less current we use,the lower the temperature the cell will run at. This means that more of the delivered power is used to produce gas,and less used to produce heat-unlike those who used low voltages and high currents--such as that which Faraday's limit was calculated from.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on November 23, 2016, 10:36:41 AM
As we will be using high grade (316L) S/S,and no additives to the water,there will be no byproduct left in the cells.
All water conduct's,no matter how pure it is,as all water is full of H and O atoms.
The less conductive(higher purity)the water is,the higher the voltage we use.
And the higher the voltage we can use,the less current we need--and the less current we use,the lower the temperature the cell will run at. This means that more of the delivered power is used to produce gas,and less used to produce heat-unlike those who used low voltages and high currents--such as that which Faraday's limit was calculated from.
Brad
I might add that this was discussed in the parent forum and the rational was that as this initial effort was proof of concept only then the minimal hazard from test cells could be tolerated but that further production should be moved towards titanium plate material.
quote from article: Also, in stainless steel applications, during the electrolysis process there is a discharge at the cathodes of a very toxic substance named hexavalent chromium. This is especially true if the stainless steel grade is less than 316L. Most companies want you to believe it is "just" rust. The truth is, this hexavalent chromium is brown in color and has been linked to cancer, birth defects and gene defects!! You might have seen this as brown colorized water and deposits in cheaper HHO generators.
http://www.drive60mpg.com/titaniumhho.html (http://www.drive60mpg.com/titaniumhho.html)
Ron
I was not talking about lo-tech materials (plates, gaskets, screws and stand-offs).
But go ahead, show the birth of an invention: the stem on the cherry.
Anxious to see when Faraday kicks in... Or maybe "Over Faraday HV" has nothing to do with that famous Faraday from electricity books? Time will tell if we're on fleek.
Most people don't realize that during normal electrolysis with just a few volts and a strong electrolyte, the water molecule splits because the electric field at the electrodes is in the order of millions of volts per meter. It can reach 100 million V/m. A strong electrolyte with a small inter electrode distance conduct the current very effectively with very low IxR losses, minimizing heating. The voltage drop thus occurs mostly across the Helmholtz electric double layer which is nanometers thick, hence the great field. 8)
Quote from: pomodoro on November 23, 2016, 07:03:25 PM
Most people don't realize that during normal electrolysis with just a few volts and a strong electrolyte, the water molecule splits because the electric field at the electrodes is in the order of millions of volts per meter. It can reach 100 million V/m. A strong electrolyte with a small inter electrode distance conduct the current very effectively with very low IxR losses, minimizing heating. The voltage drop thus occurs mostly across the Helmholtz electric double layer which is nanometers thick, hence the great field. 8)
I have to strongly disagree with that,and my results from previous experiments back up my disagreement with your statement about low voltages,and high currents.
No matter what,the higher the current,and lower the voltage-the greater the loss by way of waste heat.
What i am saying is this-
If i add enough electrolyte to my water,so as to have 2.2v @4.5 amps per cell section,in my multi plate cell,i produce say 1 liter of gas a minute,and after 10 minutes,my water temperature is 42*C
If i use straight tap water, and have 22v at 450mA per cell section,in my multy plate cell,and i produce 1.2 liters of hho per minute,and my water temperature after 10 minutes is only 23*C, then it is obvious that a higher voltage at a lower current,is far more efficient than high current brute force hho production.
Brad
Brad, if you can show a beaker with only tap water, 20 or so volts and only 400mA visually produce the same quantity of gas at the electrodes as a beaker with sodium hydroxide electrolyte , 4 amps and just a few volts then you already have a system waaaay over Faraday!!!!.
After all its the current that counts according to Faraday, and the electrolyte beaker should be making ten times the gas. But do make sure the electrodes are of the same dimensions and the supply is pure DC only! Any AC or pulsed DC must be measured with oscilloscopes to get the correct average current flows.
The info I posted is from the book "Electrochemical Methods, Fundamentals and Applications by A.J. Bard and L.R. Faulkner.
if you can show just that, and its easily replicated, then Sir, you are really onto something big.
Quote from: pomodoro on November 24, 2016, 12:48:43 AM
After all its the current that counts according to Faraday, and the electrolyte beaker should be making ten times the gas. But do make sure the electrodes are of the same dimensions and the supply is pure DC only! Any AC or pulsed DC must be measured with oscilloscopes to get the correct average current flows.
The info I posted is from the book "Electrochemical Methods, Fundamentals and Applications by A.J. Bard and L.R. Faulkner.
if you can show just that, and its easily replicated, then Sir, you are really onto something big.
QuoteBrad, if you can show a beaker with only tap water, 20 or so volts and only 400mA visually produce the same quantity of gas at the electrodes as a beaker with sodium hydroxide electrolyte , 4 amps and just a few volts then you already have a system waaaay over Faraday!!!!.
Im not sure how you worked that out?.
20v @ 400mA=8 watts
2v @ 4 amps=8 watts
Same power value,but where as the current is lower in one,then the waste heat is also lower,and so more energy is directed at producing gas.
Brad
Its Faraday's law. Only the current is responsible for the amount of gas produced. That's why 4 amps makes 10 times the gas that 0.4 makes regardless of the voltage required to pass the current. Try it out side by side 4A in a strong electrolyte vs 0.4 in tap water.
...
Hmmm
Well ,Brad is at an event [with family] for a few days ,
on the above comments which now read "..."
I suspect there will ultimately be much conjecture on the actual MO of what Brad has done !
and plenty of scrutiny , but that's why we're here !!
respectfully
Chet K
Quote from: ramset on November 25, 2016, 09:23:11 AM
Hmmm
Well ,Brad is at an event [with family] for a few days ,
on the above comments which now read "..."
I suspect there will ultimately be much conjecture on the actual MO of what Brad has done !
and plenty of scrutiny , but that's why we're here !!
respectfully
Chet K
Chet,
To preserve the sanity of this thread I would suggest you have Stefan ban the thread wreckers barbosi and erfinder (Steve Gillis) immediately. He has nothing to bring to this group but the ability to take it down to the cesspool level.
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on November 25, 2016, 11:08:52 AM
Chet,
To preserve the sanity of this thread I would suggest you have Stefan ban the thread wreckers barbosi and erfinder (Steve Gillis) immediately. He has nothing to bring to this group but the ability to take it down to the cesspool level.
Ron
Panicked over 3 dots? Asking help from someone with more chutzpah than you?
@TinMan
It's been a while. Hope you are keeping well.
About your set-up running at 60Hz, look, maybe you can try this side test.
With your set-up the way it is, find yourself a step down transformer. Connect the lower voltage side in series with negative that is coming from the rectifier to your stack. See the gas output volume. Then add a bulb as load on the high voltage side of the step down transformer. Then try the same thing in series on the positive side of the rectifier. Then if you want you can try it both ways with the higher side of the step down transformer in series.
See if there is an increase in gas production in one or more of those ways.
I'll leave it at that. Keep well.
wattsup
QuoteIts Faraday's law.
It may be his,but it is not mine.
QuoteOnly the current is responsible for the amount of gas produced.
That is incorrect.
If it were only current responsible for the production of HHO,then why a minimal voltage requirement?.
QuoteThat's why 4 amps makes 10 times the gas that 0.4 makes regardless of the voltage required to pass the current. Try it out side by side 4A in a strong electrolyte vs 0.4 in tap water.
Are you talking direct current,or total average current?
I have already tested my setup against a direct current,and my setup is far more efficient.
Brad
Perhaps wait and see the results i get at the end of this project.
Quote from: wattsup on November 25, 2016, 05:40:35 PM
@TinMan
It's been a while. Hope you are keeping well.
About your set-up running at 60Hz, look, maybe you can try this side test.
With your set-up the way it is, find yourself a step down transformer. Connect the lower voltage side in series with negative that is coming from the rectifier to your stack. See the gas output volume. Then add a bulb as load on the high voltage side of the step down transformer. Then try the same thing in series on the positive side of the rectifier. Then if you want you can try it both ways with the higher side of the step down transformer in series.
See if there is an increase in gas production in one or more of those ways.
I'll leave it at that. Keep well.
wattsup
Wattsup
That is not the point to the setup.
The thing we want to do here,is create a high voltage DC offset AC wave form,and when the secondary short's via the spark gap,this sends a very high burst of current into the cell. This in turn raises the voltage across the cell to a high value.
You can place a hammer on a nail,and push on the hammer all you like,and chances are,you will not drive the nail into the timber. Yet,if you hit the nail with short sharp blow's from the hammer,the nail will be driven into the timber.
Brad
Brad,
I like this project of yours a lot, I really do.
Just curious, are you basing your idea in any way on the supposed Stan Meyer Technology, or is this just an idea you came up with (having seen hundreds of thousands of other crazy ideas over the years) ?
I've been studying Meyer's work pretty intensely as of late and I see quite a few similarities, just expressed differently. I've even been working with a guy out of Tennessee that feels as though he has replicated Meyer's VIC & WFC. He makes a fair amount of gas at 50mA @ 12v and claims this gas is actually more powerful than typical HHO. I can't say one way or another about that, I don't have the facts, just his words. Been trying to walk in his footsteps and see if I can do myself what he has done. So far it's been a bit of a conundrum--some concepts seem easy and others start to get real complex, real fast. The fundamental idea behind what Meyer supposedly did is simple--you switch off the molecular bonds that hold the water molecule together and it just naturally falls apart. There's no brute force involved whatsoever. But to get there, you have to transition through various states that configure the water molecules in such a fashion where they will come apart without force. That's the tricky part. You need just the right amount of overlap between states and the electronics have to be designed and tuned to do this. If you mess any part of this up, it's a no go.
Anyway, I'll keep plugging along, but I'll certainly be watching how your project pans out. I like simple and if you have a method for simple that will run a small engine that turns a generator and produces enough output to drive the portion of your system that makes the fuel, that's the ticket right there. No need to go any further.
Good luck Brad. I'm pulling for you.
M@
Quote from: tinman on November 27, 2016, 12:05:28 AM
Wattsup
That is not the point to the setup.
The thing we want to do here,is create a high voltage DC offset AC wave form,and when the secondary short's via the spark gap,this sends a very high burst of current into the cell. This in turn raises the voltage across the cell to a high value.
You can place a hammer on a nail,and push on the hammer all you like,and chances are,you will not drive the nail into the timber. Yet,if you hit the nail with short sharp blow's from the hammer,the nail will be driven into the timber.
Brad
@TinMan
Just saw in your video working at mains 60Hz to your step down then rectified. So on that particular set-up following my previous post would take 5 minutes and you will see if gas is better then your .5 or .75 lpm. A good step down transformer would do.
Could say more but details would be boring.
wattsup
Quote from: wattsup on November 27, 2016, 03:02:49 PM
@TinMan
Just saw in your video working at mains 60Hz to your step down then rectified. So on that particular set-up following my previous post would take 5 minutes and you will see if gas is better then your .5 or .75 lpm. A good step down transformer would do.
Could say more but details would be boring.
wattsup
Well we could safely assume that the outcome would be better with the bulb attached to the secondary,as the impedance of the primary would be reduced when the secondary is loaded,due to a decrease in inductance value of the primary.
I would expect no better gas production with a transformer in series with the rectified output and cell,but i will give it a try along the way.
Brad
Quote from: Dog-One on November 27, 2016, 01:45:36 AM
Brad,
I like this project of yours a lot, I really do.
Just curious, are you basing your idea in any way on the supposed Stan Meyer Technology, or is this just an idea you came up with (having seen hundreds of thousands of other crazy ideas over the years) ?
I've been studying Meyer's work pretty intensely as of late and I see quite a few similarities, just expressed differently. I've even been working with a guy out of Tennessee that feels as though he has replicated Meyer's VIC & WFC. He makes a fair amount of gas at 50mA @ 12v and claims this gas is actually more powerful than typical HHO. I can't say one way or another about that, I don't have the facts, just his words. Been trying to walk in his footsteps and see if I can do myself what he has done. So far it's been a bit of a conundrum--some concepts seem easy and others start to get real complex, real fast. The fundamental idea behind what Meyer supposedly did is simple--you switch off the molecular bonds that hold the water molecule together and it just naturally falls apart. There's no brute force involved whatsoever. But to get there, you have to transition through various states that configure the water molecules in such a fashion where they will come apart without force. That's the tricky part. You need just the right amount of overlap between states and the electronics have to be designed and tuned to do this. If you mess any part of this up, it's a no go.
Anyway, I'll keep plugging along, but I'll certainly be watching how your project pans out. I like simple and if you have a method for simple that will run a small engine that turns a generator and produces enough output to drive the portion of your system that makes the fuel, that's the ticket right there. No need to go any further.
Good luck Brad. I'm pulling for you.
M@
Hi Dog-One
I guess it is much the same.
I like to think of it as !cutting! the bond,as apposed to tearing it apart,as you do with brute force systems.
The water molecule is much like a rubber band,and brute force HHO is like trying to stretch that rubber band until it break's. Here we place a slight tension on the rubber band,then take a sharp blade and cut through it.
See the water as a fast blow fuse,where that fuse may be able to pass a lot of current through it,and where you keep winding up the current until that fuse blow's,or you pass very little current through it,and hit it with one large short current pulse,and that fuse blow's.
Brad
Guys, I swear you can hear crickets chirping if you listen hard enough.
Just to bump up this important thread, who actually agrees that 20Vx 0.4 A can make as much as 2V x 4A in exactly the same cell, with the only difference being that the second has electrolyte added to make it conductive? Don't be shy now. The watts are the same after all. Please explain your reasoning and please don't flame anyone. :(
Quote from: pomodoro on November 30, 2016, 09:30:09 AM
Just to bump up this important thread, who actually agrees that 20Vx 0.4 A can make as much as 2V x 4A in exactly the same cell, with the only difference being that the second has electrolyte added to make it conductive? Don't be shy now. The watts are the same after all. Please explain your reasoning and please don't flame anyone. :(
pomodoro
Ask your self this-
If less gas is being produced using the same amount of power,but at a higher voltage,and lower current,and less heat is also produced using a higher voltage/lower current-->where is the power going ?,as it is not producing as much gas,or as much heat-it simply cannot just up and disappear.
While we are at it-a question--
I had always thought that Faradays limit converted to an MMW of 9.28,but it wouls seem that after some calculations from a well known physics professor of these forums,that the faraday MMW limit is actually lower at just 8.57 :o
Do you agree with this number ?.
QuoteGuys, I swear you can hear crickets chirping if you listen hard enough.
Some of us have to work during the week,and also have family commitments as well.
There is also the fact that when doing something like this,very accurate measuring equipment must be designed and built--so as !some! cannot say the measurements are wrong.
Brad
Pomo
Some peeps hear crickets....others hear Bizzy bee's
a lotta Buzzin going on ATM.
respectfully
Chet K
Bit busy for a full reply ATM but quick calcs reveal 8.5 ml per wattminute at 25 deg C using values of 22.4L/mole, 96485.33 for F and in an open system (const pressure of 101.3 kpa and heat from room heating water back to 25C immediately.) this is the absolute best at those conditions, never achieved by anyone apparently. It requires 1.23v. Next value is the thermoneutral of 7.05 ml which is sometimes used. Even this value is possibly impossible again at the above temp and pressure but this time 1.48v is required. There is actually a massive assumption here that the electrodes are perfectly non polarizable meaning that an incredibly small increase above the 1.23V is enough to make the required current for the 1W flow.
Increases in temp lower those voltages and increase the mmw value.
As far as Faradays law is concerned, Brad , you have killed it by a factor of 10 if the measurements of current and volumes are correct. Faraday's law is extremely precise unlike the above mmw calcs and volts have nothing to do with it.Temperature has no effect (below the thermal decomposition temp ie plasma electrolysis). Perhaps the smart chap you mention can clarify this for you.
Cheers for now pomo.
Oh BTW the crickets were due to the lack of comments by readers, assuming people are reading but keeping quiet. ;D
Quote from: pomodoro on November 30, 2016, 10:06:14 PM...As far as Faradays law is concerned, Brad , you have killed it by a factor of 10 if the measurements of current and volumes are correct...
Sounds great to me. Congrats to the Tinman for your work! I don't have a clue how to handle this gas safely so it'll be a while before I try to replicate it. Thanks in the mean time for the how to videos.
Quote from: wattsup on November 25, 2016, 05:40:35 PM
@TinMan
It's been a while. Hope you are keeping well.
About your set-up running at 60Hz, look, maybe you can try this side test.
With your set-up the way it is, find yourself a step down transformer. Connect the lower voltage side in series with negative that is coming from the rectifier to your stack. See the gas output volume. Then add a bulb as load on the high voltage side of the step down transformer. Then try the same thing in series on the positive side of the rectifier. Then if you want you can try it both ways with the higher side of the step down transformer in series.
See if there is an increase in gas production in one or more of those ways.
I'll leave it at that. Keep well.
wattsup
Wattsup
Remember the thread at OUR,where you video'd the production of HHO through your microscope ?.
As i recall,there was a good percentage of the HHO gas recombining back to water,before it had a chance to leave the cell,or rise to the top of the water.
I reviewed the video's,but dont seem to recall the voltage across the two electrodes.
Is there any chance that you can do this again,but this time use a high voltage,with a very narrow pulse width,and see if there is any recombination of the gases back to water.
This is a loss that very few people know about,and is worth showing.
Brad
Are you sure it is reforming into water, or is it possibly the gas bubbles are at first hot and expanding then quickly cooled by the water surrounding the bubbles therefor bubble shrinkage? ??? ;D
Mags
Recombinstion extremely unlikely unless platinum or perhaps palladium is used. It was an issue in some of the cold fusion experiments of the 80s. Other common metals are non catalytic .H2 and O2 can sit together for a thousand years without a flame or a catalyst.
Could Tinman's system be used in a boat to power its self?
I'm assuming the current HHO under-Faraday production system would require a boat to take in more water than it could propel itself with.
Quote from: Magluvin on December 01, 2016, 09:23:23 PM
Are you sure it is reforming into water, or is it possibly the gas bubbles are at first hot and expanding then quickly cooled by the water surrounding the bubbles therefor bubble shrinkage? ??? ;D
Mags
Hi Mags
I will dig up wattsup's videos for you-if they were not unlisted ones.
You can see plain as day,large gas bubbles there one second,and then just gone the next. No shrinking in size as they cooled-just gone. These large bubbles eould sit on the electrode for some time,and then they just would not be there.
Im going to coppy the videos,and watch them in slow motion,then frame by frame.
These videos were filmed through a microscope,and provided a look into hho production that very few have seen.
Brad
Hey Brad
Not coming down on your observation. ;D Just was thinking about possibilities.
Id like to see the vids. Interesting. I wonder if like a fuel cell it is maybe putting current back in the system, if the O and H are converting back to water. ???
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on December 01, 2016, 11:41:48 PM
Hey Brad
Not coming down on your observation. ;D Just was thinking about possibilities.
Id like to see the vids. Interesting. I wonder if like a fuel cell it is maybe putting current back in the system, if the O and H are converting back to water. ???
Mags
I did ask that very question at OUR,but got no reply's.
Here is one of the video's i was talking about.
You can clearly see the hydrogen migrating to the anode ,from the cathode.
I downloaded the video,and then used VLC media player to watch in full screen,and at 1/10 the speed. You can clearly see that at least half the hydrogen is migrating to the anode,and mixing with the oxygen,and reforming back to water,as very little of it actually breaks away,and rises to the top of the water. You can see which bubbles do make it to the top of the water,as they turn blurry as they get close to the microscope lenz--out of focus.
Most say this just dose not happen,and i would agree--once the HHO has made it out of the electromagnetic field of the cell plates. But while they are within the electromagnetic field of the cell plates,they can indeed reform back to there original state--that being water.
This was a great experiment carried out by wattsup--many thanks to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbpLVSwIkeE
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 02, 2016, 04:15:08 AM
I did ask that very question at OUR,but got no reply's.
Here is one of the video's i was talking about.
You can clearly see the hydrogen migrating to the anode ,from the cathode.
I downloaded the video,and then used VLC media player to watch in full screen,and at 1/10 the speed. You can clearly see that at least half the hydrogen is migrating to the anode,and mixing with the oxygen,and reforming back to water,as very little of it actually breaks away,and rises to the top of the water. You can see which bubbles do make it to the top of the water,as they turn blurry as they get close to the microscope lenz--out of focus.
Most say this just dose not happen,and i would agree--once the HHO has made it out of the electromagnetic field of the cell plates. But while they are within the electromagnetic field of the cell plates,they can indeed reform back to there original state--that being water.
This was a great experiment carried out by wattsup--many thanks to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbpLVSwIkeE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbpLVSwIkeE)
Brad
That is a very interesting vid. Thanks for posting and thanks to Watts for even coming up with the idea and doing it.
The bubbles only going one way seems to tell that the water disassembly happens on the left electrode. And it makes sense. Like why would there be the same function happening on the neg plate as would on the positive plate? So maybe the bubbles become charged and are attracted to the other electrode.
I see what you mean saying the bubbles seem to disappear. But they are small bubbles and the larger ones on the right electrode get larger as it goes. Say if a large bubble were only say 4 times the dia of 1 small bubble and then we add that small bubble to the large one, the increase in the large bubbles dia would be barely noticeable in the vid. And there may be large bubbles on the opposite side of the electrode that we cant see that are taking on small bubbles.
Its weird. Like if we do the inverted test tubes in a flask of water solution and put an electrode in one inverted tube and another electrode in the other, one test tube produces only oxygen and the other only fills with hydrogen. If the split happens at both electrodes, then what happened to the hydrogen atoms in the O2 test tube and what happened to the O2 in the Hydrogen test tube??
Never thought of it at this level before, and I should have.
The bubbles on the plates that stick probably and or possibly take up plate surface area. Having the water flow past the plates could possibly increase production by keeping the bubbles moving.
Mags
The cool video also shows that frequency has little to do with production of gases. 1Hz being the same as KHz. The double layer at the electrodes acts as a smoothing capacitor. It has a value of many microfarads. The double layer capacitance is used in some super capacitors. If the Sig gen has no blocking diode then you should see a break in gas production at low frequency because the output of the generator is a NPN/PNP driver. If a diode was used to convert the square AC to DC then the PNP can't discharge the double layer during the zero volts and it discharges by electrolysing water, hence the continuous gas production.
Im thinking of doing the experiment that Watts did while filming. Looking at some usb microscopes to poss do the vid. Thinking to isolate the electrodes except for the surfaces facing each other to hopefully clearly see what is going on.
Looked at some YT vids of animations of what happens. Like the 2 inverted test tubes, it is showing the H from the O tube to be transferred to the other electrode by going down ??? in the test tube and over to the other test tube. And I guess vice verse. Seems like an odd travel situation for gas atoms in water. :o Would they all get to the other tube without escaping the water by floating up and out before it reaches the other tube? In that setup is it possible that some of the gas produced may escape before making it to the other electrode? Lots of questions come to mind.
Mags
Mags
These fellows[and gals] took snapshots too
https://futurism.com/it-took-over-200-years-but-scientists-finally-figured-out-how-water-conducts-electricity/
how wonderful to see the mechanism at work ....
@ this was shared by Giantkiller at OUR last week.
thx
Chet K
Quote from: ramset on December 07, 2016, 02:47:23 AM
Mags
These fellows[and gals] took snapshots too
https://futurism.com/it-took-over-200-years-but-scientists-finally-figured-out-how-water-conducts-electricity/ (https://futurism.com/it-took-over-200-years-but-scientists-finally-figured-out-how-water-conducts-electricity/)
how wonderful to see the mechanism at work ....
@ this was shared by Giantkiller at OUR last week.
thx
Chet K
Interesting read. It kinda goes along with the way I approached the work of Stanley Meyer in that I figured main stream science must have missed something in it's understanding of water and life sciences in general. As such I found something that was overlooked and that was how plants actually break the bonds of the water molecules. It turns out that water molecules are even being broken down in a thunder storm practically the same way Meyer had figured out how to break the bonds of the water molecules outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method.
My findings show there is another way to break the bonds of the water molecules outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method that is far more efficient than energy the requirements for electrolysis. The science I uncovered will lead to a whole new era of scientific discovery. Water the stuff we all know but know so little about is now being figured out which will improve our understanding of the way things work in this world as it basically takes the magic out of the equation for magic is just science we don't fully understand yet.
Thanks for the post
...tell ye what , I second that ^^^ ;0) lol
Quote from: ramset on December 07, 2016, 02:47:23 AM
Mags
These fellows[and gals] took snapshots too
https://futurism.com/it-took-over-200-years-but-scientists-finally-figured-out-how-water-conducts-electricity/ (https://futurism.com/it-took-over-200-years-but-scientists-finally-figured-out-how-water-conducts-electricity/)
how wonderful to see the mechanism at work ....
@ this was shared by Giantkiller at OUR last week.
thx
Chet K
The second liquid state of water occurs between 104
o - 140
o Fahrenheit (video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXqH5Q8XM8c)). The properties of liquid water, such as it's thermal conductivity, refractive index, conductivity, surface tension, and the dielectric constant changes within that temperature range. Each property has a different 'crossover temperature' somewhere within this threshold, and the researchers suggest that this is because the liquid water has switched into a different phase (reference (http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-second-state-of-liquid-water)). Temperature difference between electrodes...(Proceedings of the Faraday Society (https://books.google.com/books?id=fs5KAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=temperature+of+electrodes+during+electrolysis&source=bl&ots=tCHgQDIB8l&sig=lFdlj1Dr_mvMJIjqtmkeSzcMrPM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijs-HjvebQAhVNySYKHbouAG04ChDoAQg4MAY)).
Gravock
Quote from: h20power on December 08, 2016, 12:38:48 PM
My findings show there is another way to break the bonds of the water molecules outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method that is far more efficient than energy the requirements for electrolysis.
There was a guy here sometime back, years, that was trying to show us how to do hydrolysis without electrodes, but rather a test tube with a coil of wire around it at say midpoint and input a certain level at certain freq and the lye he said was a metal, and the coil induced the metal in the water solution and said it produced a profuse amount of gas. The solution he said had to be saturated to work. Nobody got it to work if I remember.
Mags
For many years it was thought the only way to build a CO2 laser was to energize the gases with a spark. But the Trumpf company in Germany found a way to do it with RF instead. Their laser was the most efficient laser in the world back in the 1990s when I went to school on it. I have been retired from industry for almost 10 years now so I have no idea what has been done since then.
But thinking the old way of doing something is the only way it can be done is very foolish. Just my 2 cents or whatever.
Quote from: tinman on November 23, 2016, 04:23:57 AM
Hi PW
Yes,i already have a condenser,plus primary and secondary dryer's.
The water will also not rise above 30*C,as we are using a high voltage and low current.
I have seen too many video's ,where steam is poring out of the output tube,and they think it is all HHO.
No such error's will happen here.
I will also be subtracting 10% of gas volume from the end result -as an error buffer.
Brad
High voltage and low current to keep the water from transitioning and changing into it's second liquid state, which occurs between 40°C - 60°C (104°F - 140°F) appears to be the key. More misdirection by Mainstream science (scientism). They're always giving it to us backwards.... LOL.
Great Job Brad!!!
Gravock
Quote from: tinman on November 23, 2016, 10:36:41 AM
As we will be using high grade (316L) S/S,and no additives to the water,there will be no byproduct left in the cells.
All water conduct's,no matter how pure it is,as all water is full of H and O atoms.
The less conductive(higher purity)the water is,the higher the voltage we use.
And the higher the voltage we can use,the less current we need--and the less current we use,the lower the temperature the cell will run at. This means that more of the delivered power is used to produce gas,and less used to produce heat-unlike those who used low voltages and high currents--such as that which Faraday's limit was calculated from.
Brad
Faraday's limit was calculated from the second liquid state of water. Faraday's limit doesn't apply to the first liquid state of water! ROFLMAO!!!
Gravock
Quote from: Dog-One on November 27, 2016, 01:45:36 AM
Brad,
I like this project of yours a lot, I really do.
Just curious, are you basing your idea in any way on the supposed Stan Meyer Technology, or is this just an idea you came up with (having seen hundreds of thousands of other crazy ideas over the years) ?
I've been studying Meyer's work pretty intensely as of late and I see quite a few similarities, just expressed differently. I've even been working with a guy out of Tennessee that feels as though he has replicated Meyer's VIC & WFC. He makes a fair amount of gas at 50mA @ 12v and claims this gas is actually more powerful than typical HHO. I can't say one way or another about that, I don't have the facts, just his words. Been trying to walk in his footsteps and see if I can do myself what he has done. So far it's been a bit of a conundrum--some concepts seem easy and others start to get real complex, real fast. The fundamental idea behind what Meyer supposedly did is simple--you switch off the molecular bonds that hold the water molecule together and it just naturally falls apart. There's no brute force involved whatsoever. But to get there, you have to transition through various states that configure the water molecules in such a fashion where they will come apart without force. That's the tricky part. You need just the right amount of overlap between states and the electronics have to be designed and tuned to do this. If you mess any part of this up, it's a no go.
Anyway, I'll keep plugging along, but I'll certainly be watching how your project pans out. I like simple and if you have a method for simple that will run a small engine that turns a generator and produces enough output to drive the portion of your system that makes the fuel, that's the ticket right there. No need to go any further.
Good luck Brad. I'm pulling for you.
M@
You hit the nail on the head!!!
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on December 09, 2016, 03:25:50 PM
Faraday's limit was calculated from the second liquid state of water. Faraday's limit doesn't apply to the first liquid state of water! ROFLMAO!!!
Gravock
Interesting, where exactly can I find the scientific article for this special state of water?
Quote from: pomodoro on December 09, 2016, 06:30:46 PM
Interesting, where exactly can I find the scientific article for this special state of water?
On the existence of two states in liquid water: Impact on biological and nanoscopic systems (http://polymer.bu.edu/hes/articles/mmcjggjms16.pdf)
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on December 10, 2016, 04:04:07 AM
On the existence of two states in liquid water: Impact on biological and nanoscopic systems (http://polymer.bu.edu/hes/articles/mmcjggjms16.pdf)
Gravock
Awesome!
Edit,
Ok had a good read snd its quite interesting. To me it seems that the changes are rather miniscule and thats why it took so long to come to the conclusion of the two states.
Unfortunately I can guarantee you that for normal electrolysis it would make no difference, as any such changes are already incorporated in the thermodynamic formula by virtue of the entropy (S) factor which has been measured for water at various temperatures already. S does change with temp but by very little.
For other methods, well in theory the first law of thermodynamics still holds, and it should take the same energy, but cross your fingers and lets see what magic Brad can do for us ...
One thing you will find is the dielectric constant changes wildly with temperature. From my experiments the colder the water the better it works for Voltrolysis. I have noticed big time the hotter the water the lower the voltage will be being applied to the water bath. Now to be fair I have been at this a lot longer than most and as a result I have noticed things about this technology most people have not.
Ok,so after a couple of busy weeks,i mannaged to get into the workshop today,and complete the test bed.
Also have a base line of performance for the cell,using a steady and pulsed DC current,at low voltages.
No difference in output or MMW was noted using either pulsed or straight/continuous current at 50Hz
Voltage and current was measured by both DMMs and scope.
Some test result examples.
Remember,the voltage is across the cell,and not each neutral plate set.
14.45v @ 3.1amps= MMW of 5.58
15.4v @ 5.84amps= MMW of 5.38
15.6v @ 7.1amps= MMW of 5.24
Gas temperature remains at 26*C for all tests.
Interesting to note that the efficiency drops as the current value rises.
Video up within the next few days,as still have a bit of tidying up to do.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 10, 2016, 11:22:51 PM
Ok,so after a couple of busy weeks,i mannaged to get into the workshop today,and complete the test bed.
Also have a base line of performance for the cell,using a steady and pulsed DC current,at low voltages.
No difference in output or MMW was noted using either pulsed or straight/continuous current at 50Hz
Voltage and current was measured by both DMMs and scope.
Some test result examples.
Remember,the voltage is across the cell,and not each neutral plate set.
14.45v @ 3.1amps= MMW of 5.58
15.4v @ 5.84amps= MMW of 5.38
15.6v @ 7.1amps= MMW of 5.24
Gas temperature remains at 26*C for all tests.
Interesting to note that the efficiency drops as the current value rises.
Video up within the next few days,as still have a bit of tidying up to do.
Brad
Nice setup Brad. Great to see you are using the oscilloscope for V and I measurements. How many individual cells are there?
Quote from: pomodoro on December 11, 2016, 01:52:55 AM
Nice setup Brad.. How many individual cells are there?
It is a 15 plate cell,where the center plate is the negative,and the two outer plates are the positive.
There are 6 neutral plates in each half of the cell.
QuoteGreat to see you are using the oscilloscope for V and I measurements
Yes,i use both the scope and DMMs to measure V&I,where i will carry out a couple of runs using the DMMs,and then put in place a CVR,and confirm P/in measurements using the scope.
We are within +/- 1.2% on current,and within .3% on voltage. So our error margin is very small.
I also have a condenser and filter/dryer-as can be seen in the pic.
There is also a temperature probe in the poly T piece,so as i can monitor gas temperature.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 11, 2016, 05:05:39 AM
It is a 15 plate cell,where the center plate is the negative,and the two outer plates are the positive.
There are 6 neutral plates in each half of the cell.
Yes,i use both the scope and DMMs to measure V&I,where i will carry out a couple of runs using the DMMs,and then put in place a CVR,and confirm P/in measurements using the scope.
We are within +/- 1.2% on current,and within .3% on voltage. So our error margin is very small.
I also have a condenser and filter/dryer-as can be seen in the pic.
There is also a temperature probe in the poly T piece,so as i can monitor gas temperature.
Brad
Say Brad,
Here is a cell that should be very easy for you to construct and make and it gives away one of my secrets. As you can see I used SS bars instead of plates and I added laser energy to the mix. Now the reason for the bars is to force the electricity to follow the path of least resistance as those SS bars have far less resistance than the water does. Eleven SS bars in series to give ten water gaps they are 1/8" thic[size=78%]k, [/size]but I should have used 1/4" to get more of the desired effect but the cell works great none the less. Thus far I have managed to take it up to 9.4kv and when the new VIC is built I should be able to take it to around 14kv. I used plastic shim stock to control the spacing between the plates and a SS spring with a low profile SS bolt for the electrical connections. I used plumbers tape to seal all the threaded parts. Not all that expensive and one can really start to test some high voltages with this setup.
Let me know what you think, okay?
Ed
Quote from: h20power on December 11, 2016, 05:46:41 AM
Say Brad,
Here is a cell that should be very easy for you to construct and make and it gives away one of my secrets. As you can see I used SS bars instead of plates and I added laser energy to the mix. Now the reason for the bars is to force the electricity to follow the path of least resistance as those SS bars have far less resistance than the water does. Eleven SS bars in series to give ten water gaps they are 1/8" thic[size=78%]k, [/size]but I should have used 1/4" to get more of the desired effect but the cell works great none the less. Thus far I have managed to take it up to 9.4kv and when the new VIC is built I should be able to take it to around 14kv. I used plastic shim stock to control the spacing between the plates and a SS spring with a low profile SS bolt for the electrical connections. I used plumbers tape to seal all the threaded parts. Not all that expensive and one can really start to test some high voltages with this setup.
Let me know what you think, okay?
Ed
Hi Ed
I would be interested in hearing about your results using HV instead of low voltages with high currents.
Brad
Hi Brad,
Right now I have to wait for the parts of the new VIC to be made for me before I can get back to testing as something burned up in the last one I made. Oh, and I made a mistake the bars are 3/16" not 1/8" but I still should have use some 1/4" bars. I just thought you'd like to see a design that allows for the testing of laser energy that is fairly simply in build and design.The plate surface area is approximately the same as the ten cell tubular array and they seem to have the same capacitance as the voltage stays about the same if I swap one out for the other while testing. One thing you should know about going for the threshold for ionization is it's an all or nothing type of situation. Failure to reach the threshold voltage for ionization results in little to no gas generation and most people get discouraged when trying to figure out how to design a VIC transformer that will apply the right voltage to the cell due to this all or nothing situation.
For those that don't understand the wording I am using think of an ozone generator's mode of operation http://www.bystat.com/pages/info/articles/Articles_ComplianceEngineering_sep06.pdf (http://www.bystat.com/pages/info/articles/Articles_ComplianceEngineering_sep06.pdf) as it is much the same process. If you don't reach a high enough voltage to bring on the ionization of the air molecules nothing happens, correct? This technology is no different as the water molecules are being broken down by way of an ionizing radiation field that targets both atoms at the same time with Meyer's technology.
I will try and make a video showing how this voltage dissociation is different from standard electrolysis, but know that I have already posted a lot of the science behind the technology for everyone's consumption. I tried posting some photos but I guess they are too big as it wouldn't let me. Anyway I thought you'd like to see a design such as this for it is fairly easy to build and control the parameters. If you want to push more amps just remember to use a thicker wire size for the spring connections. I will normally only push around 0.5-0.8 mA through the water bath which really doesn't effect the water's temperature over time as the unit is running. In fact I have noticed that it will follow the temperatures of the day when I am testing it for long periods of time.
Anyway keep up the good testing as this is the only way these technologies will ever be solved as it takes a lot of trial and error to learn just how this technology works.
Ed
This is the setup I use the most: http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/002_zpslttdixbz.jpg
Brad, because the cell plate spacing is very small, the conductivity of the tap water is high enough to cause a large current at relatively small voltages. Tap water I've tested has a conductivity of around 200 microSiemens. So you are basically doing normal electrolysis. Low V and high current. You need to start diluting the tap water with distilled water from the supermarket. This will allow you to pass much higher voltages for the same current. The distilled water is demineralized but it will conduct some current because it is not ultra pure. For that you need 18 meg water which is even more demineralized and degassed as carbon dioxide from the air very quickly dissolves in it and conducts as it becomes carbonic acid. Even then , the 18 meg water conducts a very tiny amount because water molecules disassociate into H+ and OH- in a very small extent naturally and will conduct with a resistivity of 18megaohms cm , hence the name of the ultra pure water. I've briefly tested 18M water for insulation by trying to pass about 50KV through a 20cm column and could not get a spark out of the other end, although the small Tesla coil was capable of 1.5 inch sparks. The supermarket water should be plenty good enough for most tests.
Ed, have you been able to produce more moles of gas per mole of electrons as predicted by Faraday using your setup, based on a single cell ? If so do you have some examples of avg current ,time, gas volume at room temp and pressure and number of cell plates?
Cheers Pomo.
MY TWO BOBS WORTH . WE WILL NOT SEE A GREAT IMPROVEMENT IN ELECTROLYSIS OD WATER ,UNLESS ONE USE
A CATALYST LIKE NANO NICKEL, OR MAYBE GRAPHENE. SO THE ANSWER IS IN A NEW CATALYTIC MATERIAL..
Hello Pomo,
I haven't made a video of such but I use an analog micro amp meter for these test. The hard part of all of this is reaching the voltage to ionize the electrons of the atoms that make up the water molecules, but as I stated in the pdf file it is the waveform itself that is the primary source of amp restriction with Meyer's technology as it will act almost as an AC wave when tuned correctly. http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/958be1cd-5c66-4641-a4c0-1ffbdd648382_zps6f7c4c6f.jpg
In this test you can see I was pushing only 22 mA through the water bath and now that I understand how to tune it properly I am only pushing around 0.5-0.8 mA through the water bath and would actually need to get a new scale to read it with more accuracy. What I find wrong with most that want to work on Meyer's technology is they don't understand how to tune it correctly or just what the waveform is supposed to look like and why it is suppose to look that way. When tuning for resonance it's best to have a circuit that can control the number of pulses being sent to the FET that is independent of the frequency and the gating. I simply set up my circuit to have 5 pulses, apply the gating, and then tune the frequency for resonance. When resonance is found the waveform will have a positive and a negative voltage to it that are about equal if the coils can power the load of the water fuel cell that it is hooked up to. The circuit I use comes from here: http://source-for-innovations.com/pgen.htm but is itself a work in progress but it allows me far more control of the pulsing than any circuit I have worked with in the past as I can even vary the duty in real time. The more equal the positive and negative are in the waveform the higher the amp restriction and the higher the voltage will be.
When I get the newest VIC transformer built I should be able get the voltage far higher than I have ever gotten them before in the past as each time I fail I learn something new about the technology and how it all works and trust me I have failed a lot. I am different from most that are working on this technology in that I went after the science behind the technology before I went to try and duplicate it. After finding the science behind this technology I had to learn how to build the technology correctly just like everyone else but with the science understood I had a direction to go in. Each resonant cavity or space gap in the plate cell must have 1000 volts or more of potential difference if they are built close to Meyer's standards. That is to say they need 500 volts positive and 500 volts negative in the waveform for each resonant cavity. For a cell such as mines that number must be multiplied by 10 as I have ten cells hooked up in series. This means I have to reach a minimum of 10kv before the either cell will fire up correctly and I will admit I haven't reach it yet but have gotten very close reaching 9.4kv in the last round of testing. But the science behind all of this is clear to me now so I know what is needed to break the bonds of the water molecules in a way that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method as I found the science behind this technology. The goal is to get at the electrons of the atoms that make up the water molecules as once the electrons are taken away the water molecules simply fall apart. I have had to build so many VIC transformers in the road towards learning how to get the voltages up to this threshold voltage I discovered. Will the new VIC transformer work? Not sure but I will find out after it is built. I have only gotten it to work a few times and each time the transformers shorted out on me I hope to have solved that problem now.
When it is time I will see what I can do to bring this technology to the market place.
Ed
Ed
Your Images need to be resized before posting [Way too big],otherwise we have to put the sneakers on and run back and forth to read all the posts on the page !
respectfully
Chet K
Quote from: ramset on December 12, 2016, 10:01:44 PM
Ed
Your Images need to be resized before posting [Way too big],otherwise we have to put the sneakers on and run back and forth to read all the posts on the page !
respectfully
Chet K
Agreed, got to figure out how to do that, LOL.
I'll limit my photos until I figure out this sit more.
Thanks for pointing that out to me,
Ed
I use Picpick to edit and resize pics.
http://download.cnet.com/PicPick/3000-2192_4-75072925.html
Just load the pic in picpick and use the Resize function and bring the pic size to 30% then save to a folder for uploads to post.
Mags
@h2Opower
Please resample your image size before you post, or edit your posts with small resampled images.
@TinMan
One possible way to increase production. If you can find a small aquarium pump X in the direction shown then the return line Y
raised to the left red arrow (or an internal baffle), this will increase the volume change and remove bubbles quicker thus
establishing or maintaining a higher saturation of water between the plates.
Remember your last data shows lower efficiency with higher amps, because at higher amps the space between the plates that is
supposed to be filled with H2O is over-satured by gas bubbles that lowers the "conductivity" thus at higher amps this problem
grows more then the gas.
Question: Above inter-plate spacing, did you first do test with two plates where you can vary the space in between while you
check gas output at a given feed source. If this is not done, how do you know the spacing is optimal. Again your last data shows
there could be a missed variable - that is the same higher amps at higher plate spacing. Just to say, there are many factors
indeed.
Yes the physical vibrating helps but I bet H2O volume change is even more important. If you can keep the water always moving
you should increase gas production in the topology of your build. If you fill the cell with water, then empty the water into a
measuring cup this will give you the volume. then your water pump can be for 1, 2 or 3 volumes changes per let's say one
minute.
Also, maybe this is too simplistic but the idea of what if you had two transformers, one at 180 degrees off phase, both rectified
then connected to your cells as follows;
Use Variac as AC in too both transformers in parallel.......
1st Transformer after rectified connect negative to center plate and positive to the end plates.
2nd Transformer after rectified connect negative to the end plates and positive to the center plate.
Last thing, I grabbed an image on my Hydrogen 2 video and explain an alternative to how the gas is actually made. This method
would mean there is no electron being cascaded anywhere as @ramset had referred to that article of "how conductivity happens
in water". Basically, it's the minerals that have an affinity for "electrified" plates that dart towards the plate so fast that they go
straight line and cut a micro stream, of fractured H2O into their constituent parts. This would be major shift from the standard
physics explanations. I could provide more detail that would give guys some fresh angles.
wattsup
I wonder, what if a small the water pump was gas run. hehehe
Quote from: wattsup on December 13, 2016, 12:32:55 AM
@h2Opower
Please resample your image size before you post, or edit your posts with small resampled images.
@TinMan
One possible way to increase production. If you can find a small aquarium pump X in the direction shown then the return line Y
raised to the left red arrow (or an internal baffle), this will increase the volume change and remove bubbles quicker thus
establishing or maintaining a higher saturation of water between the plates.
Remember your last data shows lower efficiency with higher amps, because at higher amps the space between the plates that is
supposed to be filled with H2O is over-satured by gas bubbles that lowers the "conductivity" thus at higher amps this problem
grows more then the gas.
Question: Above inter-plate spacing, did you first do test with two plates where you can vary the space in between while you
check gas output at a given feed source. If this is not done, how do you know the spacing is optimal. Again your last data shows
there could be a missed variable - that is the same higher amps at higher plate spacing. Just to say, there are many factors
indeed.
Yes the physical vibrating helps but I bet H2O volume change is even more important. If you can keep the water always moving
you should increase gas production in the topology of your build. If you fill the cell with water, then empty the water into a
measuring cup this will give you the volume. then your water pump can be for 1, 2 or 3 volumes changes per let's say one
minute.
Also, maybe this is too simplistic but the idea of what if you had two transformers, one at 180 degrees off phase, both rectified
then connected to your cells as follows;
Use Variac as AC in too both transformers in parallel.......
1st Transformer after rectified connect negative to center plate and positive to the end plates.
2nd Transformer after rectified connect negative to the end plates and positive to the center plate.
Last thing, I grabbed an image on my Hydrogen 2 video and explain an alternative to how the gas is actually made. This method
would mean there is no electron being cascaded anywhere as @ramset had referred to that article of "how conductivity happens
in water". Basically, it's the minerals that have an affinity for "electrified" plates that dart towards the plate so fast that they go
straight line and cut a micro stream, of fractured H2O into their constituent parts. This would be major shift from the standard
physics explanations. I could provide more detail that would give guys some fresh angles.
wattsup
I wonder, what if a small the water pump was gas run. hehehe
Hey Watts
Totally agree with forcing the bubbles off the plates and in the areas between plates. Recommended pumping water through earlier.
What sort of camera did you use to take the pics and vid?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on December 13, 2016, 01:31:46 AM
Hey Watts
Totally agree with forcing the bubbles off the plates and in the areas between plates. Recommended pumping water through earlier.
What sort of camera did you use to take the pics and vid?
Mags
This reminds me of a ( i think) Japanese professor a few years back.
Not sure he did it to release the bubbles easier, but he had good production.
I searched for the little clip, but can not find it anymore.
His setup was vertical, plates stacked above each other, only connected on one side , so the plates had a little freedom to resonate.
Quote from: pomodoro on December 12, 2016, 06:43:18 PM
Brad, because the cell plate spacing is very small, the conductivity of the tap water is high enough to cause a large current at relatively small voltages. Tap water I've tested has a conductivity of around 200 microSiemens. So you are basically doing normal electrolysis. Low V and high current. You need to start diluting the tap water with distilled water from the supermarket. This will allow you to pass much higher voltages for the same current. The distilled water is demineralized but it will conduct some current because it is not ultra pure. For that you need 18 meg water which is even more demineralized and degassed as carbon dioxide from the air very quickly dissolves in it and conducts as it becomes carbonic acid. Even then , the 18 meg water conducts a very tiny amount because water molecules disassociate into H+ and OH- in a very small extent naturally and will conduct with a resistivity of 18megaohms cm , hence the name of the ultra pure water. I've briefly tested 18M water for insulation by trying to pass about 50KV through a 20cm column and could not get a spark out of the other end, although the small Tesla coil was capable of 1.5 inch sparks. The supermarket water should be plenty good enough for most tests.
Ed, have you been able to produce more moles of gas per mole of electrons as predicted by Faraday using your setup, based on a single cell ? If so do you have some examples of avg current ,time, gas volume at room temp and pressure and number of cell plates?
Cheers Pomo.
Hi Pomo
This is the low voltage/high current test. I am using KOH as an Elite ATM.
These tests are to get a base line efficiency of the cell,in standard HHO production methods.
When we switch to the high voltage setup,i will be using rain water.
Brad
Quote from: wattsup on December 13, 2016, 12:32:55 AM
@h2Opower
Please resample your image size before you post, or edit your posts with small resampled images.
@TinMan
One possible way to increase production. If you can find a small aquarium pump X in the direction shown then the return line Y
raised to the left red arrow (or an internal baffle), this will increase the volume change and remove bubbles quicker thus
establishing or maintaining a higher saturation of water between the plates.
Remember your last data shows lower efficiency with higher amps, because at higher amps the space between the plates that is
supposed to be filled with H2O is over-satured by gas bubbles that lowers the "conductivity" thus at higher amps this problem
grows more then the gas.
Question: Above inter-plate spacing, did you first do test with two plates where you can vary the space in between while you
check gas output at a given feed source. If this is not done, how do you know the spacing is optimal. Again your last data shows
there could be a missed variable - that is the same higher amps at higher plate spacing. Just to say, there are many factors
indeed.
Yes the physical vibrating helps but I bet H2O volume change is even more important. If you can keep the water always moving
you should increase gas production in the topology of your build. If you fill the cell with water, then empty the water into a
measuring cup this will give you the volume. then your water pump can be for 1, 2 or 3 volumes changes per let's say one
minute.
Also, maybe this is too simplistic but the idea of what if you had two transformers, one at 180 degrees off phase, both rectified
then connected to your cells as follows;
Use Variac as AC in too both transformers in parallel.......
1st Transformer after rectified connect negative to center plate and positive to the end plates.
2nd Transformer after rectified connect negative to the end plates and positive to the center plate.
Last thing, I grabbed an image on my Hydrogen 2 video and explain an alternative to how the gas is actually made. This method
would mean there is no electron being cascaded anywhere as @ramset had referred to that article of "how conductivity happens
in water". Basically, it's the minerals that have an affinity for "electrified" plates that dart towards the plate so fast that they go
straight line and cut a micro stream, of fractured H2O into their constituent parts. This would be major shift from the standard
physics explanations. I could provide more detail that would give guys some fresh angles.
wattsup
I wonder, what if a small the water pump was gas run. hehehe
Hey wattsup.
Thanks for all your input into this experiment.
What i want to do first,is get to the point of the HV HHO production setup,and then you guys can judge for your self,as to what is taking place.
But lets think about your statement -Quote:Basically, it's the minerals that have an affinity for "electrified" plates that dart towards the plate so fast that they go
straight line and cut a micro stream, of fractured H2O into their constituent parts.
Lets say that you are on the money here.
What happens to the speed of these minerals,when a high voltage pulse is sent between each plate?.
What happens to the speed of the electron,when the voltage potential is increased?.
Brad
Quote from: wattsup on December 13, 2016, 12:32:55 AM
@TinMan
One possible way to increase production. If you can find a small aquarium pump X in the direction shown then the return line Y
raised to the left red arrow (or an internal baffle), this will increase the volume change and remove bubbles quicker thus
establishing or maintaining a higher saturation of water between the plates.
The cell must be allowed to draw in it's own water. If you force water through the cell with an external pump then you'll destroy the process. You can use the basic concepts of a simple "air lift (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOVZ4oklBFw)" to allow the cell to naturally draw in it's own water without the use of an external pump.
Gravock
Electrolysis of water
US 4726888 A (https://www.google.com/patents/US4726888)
The combination of high voltage/low amperage plates arranged perpendicularly to low voltage/high amperage electrodes in a box-like formation is deemed to provide a synergistic effect, particularly where the high voltage, but low current is applied to the small but significantly more numerous anode/cathode plates 14 and 16. The arrangement of this relatively small high voltage plates, parallel to each other, provides an extremely large surface area for transfer of ions between anode and cathode and for the carrying out of the electrolytic process.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on December 13, 2016, 11:48:36 PM
The cell must be allowed to draw in it's own water. If you move water through the cell with a pump then you'll destroy the process. You can use a simple "air lift (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOVZ4oklBFw)" to allow the cell to draw in it's own water without a pump.
Gravock
This isn't fully true what you have said here and here is the reason why. We have to learn a new scale and that scale will be the voltage to water breakdown rate. Once we learn this new rate we can start to calculate what voltage we need to be at to breakdown a given amount of water per unit time. You see the game has changed as we are no longer seeking the old Dr. Faraday style electrolysis but the new voltage dissociation of the water molecules. This new rate of water dissociation by voltage level has yet to be learned by any of us, myself included, for we are dealing with a new form of water dissociation that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method.
I have ran test that show when a pump is used it seems to mess up the process but as I reached higher and higher voltages I noticed the process restabilzes and things go back to normal. Just think of the new math all that want to understand this technology will have to learn to be able to predict the amount of water per injection cycle voltage breakdown rate? This is the primary reason why anyone that has made the injectors haven't gotten it to work at all as they jump ahead too far and have no idea just what they are dealing with and to be at that level one has to fully understand the technology first so that all the necessary calculations can be made before the thing is built. They have no idea what the spring tension pressure should be set at and the list of what they don't know or understand yet goes on and on.
The way I took to this technology was to learn it through and through and I still have much to learn. This is how I know what you are saying is true for normal electrolysis but untrue for the voltage breakdown of the water molecules as there is a new rate that we need to figure out. The hard part is reaching the necessary voltage levels to ionize the electrons of the atoms that make up the water molecules while they are in the liquid state of water. Trust me when I tell you thus far it hasn't been easy figuring out just how to go about placing a high voltage potential difference directly to the plates of the resonant cavities while they are submersed in water. Most people have only been able to reach 5-10 volts with Meyer's setup and they quickly give up or start going back to the old ways trying to push a bunch of current. It is the all or nothing nature of this technology which discourages people as many are like Max Miller and just want to see bubbles by any means necessary and thus will start pushing amps again just to make some bubbles come out of the resonant cavities.
When this voltage dissociation of the water molecules takes place it doesn't look like electrolysis at all as the water looks as if it is boiling, EI, large bubbles coming out of the resonant cavities with very few fine bubbles that would be seen and/or associated with normal electrolysis. Professor Paulz who is an eye witness to Meyer's technology in action described what he saw saying, "it practically boils the water." Now someone with that high of an education knows the difference between the way electrolysis looks compared to that of boiling water. I simply used these eye witnesses accounts of what they saw to know if I was doing things the right way or not. Once I got the effect of very little small bubbles I knew I was heading down the right track.
So, know that there is a new rate of reaction we have to learn about as this technology is something that is new thus will have a lot of new things we will have to learn, okay? I am not coming down on you but just letting you know this technology is something different than standard electrolysis.
Ed
Quote from: h20power on December 14, 2016, 01:01:09 AM
This isn't fully true what you have said here and here is the reason why. We have to learn a new scale and that scale will be the voltage to water breakdown rate. Once we learn this new rate we can start to calculate what voltage we need to be at to breakdown a given amount of water per unit time. You see the game has changed as we are no longer seeking the old Dr. Faraday style electrolysis but the new voltage dissociation of the water molecules. This new rate of water dissociation by voltage level has yet to be learned by any of us, myself included, for we are dealing with a new form of water dissociation that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method.
I have ran test that show when a pump is used it seems to mess up the process but as I reached higher and higher voltages I noticed the process restabilzes and things go back to normal. Just think of the new math all that want to understand this technology will have to learn to be able to predict the amount of water per injection cycle voltage breakdown rate? This is the primary reason why anyone that has made the injectors haven't gotten it to work at all as they jump ahead too far and have no idea just what they are dealing with and to be at that level one has to fully understand the technology first so that all the necessary calculations can be made before the thing is built. They have no idea what the spring tension pressure should be set at and the list of what they don't know or understand yet goes on and on.
The way I took to this technology was to learn it through and through and I still have much to learn. This is how I know what you are saying is true for normal electrolysis but untrue for the voltage breakdown of the water molecules as there is a new rate that we need to figure out. The hard part is reaching the necessary voltage levels to ionize the electrons of the atoms that make up the water molecules while they are in the liquid state of water. Trust me when I tell you thus far it hasn't been easy figuring out just how to go about placing a high voltage potential difference directly to the plates of the resonant cavities while they are submersed in water. Most people have only been able to reach 5-10 volts with Meyer's setup and they quickly give up or start going back to the old ways trying to push a bunch of current. It is the all or nothing nature of this technology which discourages people as many are like Max Miller and just want to see bubbles by any means necessary and thus will start pushing amps again just to make some bubbles come out of the resonant cavities.
When this voltage dissociation of the water molecules takes place it doesn't look like electrolysis at all as the water looks as if it is boiling, EI, large bubbles coming out of the resonant cavities with very few fine bubbles that would be seen and/or associated with normal electrolysis. Professor Paulz who is an eye witness to Meyer's technology in action described what he saw saying, "it practically boils the water." Now someone with that high of an education knows the difference between the way electrolysis looks compared to that of boiling water. I simply used these eye witnesses accounts of what they saw to know if I was doing things the right way or not. Once I got the effect of very little small bubbles I knew I was heading down the right track.
So, know that there is a new rate of reaction we have to learn about as this technology is something that is new thus will have a lot of new things we will have to learn, okay? I am not coming down on you but just letting you know this technology is something different than standard electrolysis.
Ed
It doesn't matter what the rate of reaction is if you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the method I showed. If the rate of reaction increases, then the flow of water moving through the cell will naturally increase. If the rate of reaction decreases, then the water flowing through the cell will naturally decrease. The water flow through the cell is self-regulating according to the rate of the reaction. More HHO production equals more water flow through the cell. Less HHO production equals less water flow through the cell. The "new rate of reaction" you speak of is totally meaningless when you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the amount of HHO production the cell is generating. The water flow through the cell is naturally linked to the rate of the reaction! There's no need for additional energy to run an external pump! IMO, the best way is to let the cell naturally pump it's own water according to the rate of HHO production.
Gravock
Ionization
High voltages stimulate the hydronium/hydroxide cycle.
During which free hydrogen+ ions are released.
Some systems take advantage of this in conjunction with
Specific frequency responses of water. Similar to the way a
Microwave works.
Efficiency curves indicate that an increase in temperature and pressure
allow for ionization to take place at a lower molecular voltage.
Quote from: Magluvin on December 13, 2016, 01:31:46 AM
Hey Watts
Totally agree with forcing the bubbles off the plates and in the areas between plates. Recommended pumping water through earlier. What sort of camera did you use to take the pics and vid? Mags
@Magluvin
I just aligned a stand mounted camcorder on the eyepiece of the microscope.
I put some photos here to not junk @TinMan's thread.
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups'%20stuff/hydrogen/
@Tinman
So I won't really talk about the electron because for me it no longer exists. Makes life so much easier.
OK, High Voltage is what? Answer that first then ask if it will help in HHO plates. So here is my take.
Let's say you had a primary coil that had 5000 turns. You apply 100 volts across it. The conveyance barely reached the 200th turn and the secondary output is just really bad. You increase the voltage to 200 volts but half the amps. Wow now you are at the 400th turn. So the more you increase your voltage the "deeper" you will convey or change your effect into this very long primary coil of wire. But too much and you're wasting juice. Put 10000 volts across that same primary and you will get coil bypass, where the impulse just jumps across layers of winding instead of following the given winding path.
Let's say if you send 100 volts at 50 amps into a #10 wire. After the pulse if you took a copper atom survey, let's imagine that 80% of them will say "I felt it". So they felt it even if they reacted by conveying the wrong way and against others that are trying to reach a rhythm. Now send 10000 volts at .001 amp. After the pulse if you again surveyed the atoms, 90% will say "What the hell are you talking about and 10% will say "I felt it off and on". The high voltage can only send a thin thin stream of conveyance across that fat wire.
As you know, at higher voltages Tesla coils send arcs through air so it can go deeper not only in the length of wire but also in air. 750KV in wire will convey electricity from James Bay to Montreal. So in one way Voltage can be equated to distance.
So for a square metal plate to be energized by high voltage will just produce a dancing thin streamer and wherever it dances, you will momentarily attract minerals that will shoot through the water and fracture it into two gasses. Regardless of the method, the minerals are the blades, the water is the fruit and the pulsed plate is the blender. The blades in this case are not attached to a drive motor but are attracted to action while in the water medium where a two gas fracture is the "side effect". Like when you pulse a base that has a beaker of water on it with a small magnet in the beaker that rotates to the impulse of the base.
So I think HV is OK but under one condition. Test the same high voltage with a simple air gap and see how far you can separate the gap before you loose the spark. Then use that distance minus a smidgen in only a two plate system, positive and negative. That would be the starting point. The advantage of HV is distance so why confine it in such short spaces as the spaces between your existing plates. The more distance means more water is exposed to the effect of mineral attraction, more distance those minerals can shoot through the water before colliding with the plate thus should produce more gas.
You can try HV with close up plates but I can imagine it will be overkill. Maybe if you had 100 plates or more in a row (distance), but so close together and you will still oversaturate the chambers with bubbles so you still will need that pump I talked about to move crap out of there elle speedy. Nothing will help the main topology overcome its checkmates more then flow rate. I personally do not like the closed environment of those cells. You can use 1% of 10 square feet or 10% of 1 square foot and do the same thing. I think the effect if understood can be controlled much better then the happenstance occurring inside those cells.
What happens is the gas production needs to be looked at as rising and falling slope over time. When the pulse is on, it should stay on for a given period where the virgin water is ready to split with maximum production but as the process is engendered, the gasses themselves produce areas of reduced resistance to the pull force of the impulse of the plates on the minerals would then be directly colliding with the plates producing heat then if they are shooting through dense water to produce more fractured atoms so gas production goes down. If the situation persists, you will arrive at an rms production level that is less then when first started. This is where we are today.
And yes, a water pump may create a situation where the flow rate is too high, the minerals that are fighting to shoot perpendicular towards the plates are now also carried by the flow so their direction is now more parallel to the plate. The water flow will create plate surface tensions that can keep new minerald from approaching the plate at full speed hence may result in less gas. But then to fix those problems you would need to design new plate surfaces that will increase gas production with water flow that then both work together to produce and remove bubbles from the pack ASAP. But I still think closed plate cells are not the answer. Since water is not compressible, it is immediately reactive to any flow force that will push water though the complete cell at the same flow. So one way to do this is to
turn on the water pump only when the plate impulse is off. Produce-Move Out-Produce-Move out.
But the answer I am trying to show is not in the "electron" you think is responsible for the effect. This is all purely atomic physical cause and effects, all factors confounded, water chemistry, mineral types (blender blade models), static or dynamic flow, plate surfaces and pulse voltage, amps and frequency, straight peak pulsing versus sweeped rise and fall pulsing and we can go on and on. I think the main point to retain is if you can expand your vision of how gas is produced, this will eventually translate into wanting to manipulate more variables in your R&D. If all you think about is "electrons" do it, then you are left with little impetus to use the physical topology to augment the output results.
I think the best results will be designs that cut the gas exit times to its minimum possible, meaning the gas should be produced at or just below the surface water line where bubbles are made and reach the top gas pocket right away. If bubbles need to rise in vertical plate spaces, the effect quickly becomes counter productive and totally lost to any betterment save the possible simple or more creative use of flow rate, internal flow baffles to reduce dead zones but basically all attempts to reduce the bad effects of the given topology which in general should have all been anticipated before a build.
The problem I see with HHO production is you are creating a very isolated source of gasses but then let buoyancy and randomness to output it from that point of creation. So I will work on a even newer design alternative just to show what I am thinking about as a more natural method one can analog to a natural gas/water producing phenomena know as geysers. Geysers shoot out sporadically. They build up gas pressure that can overcome the head of water on top of it then shoot out the gas at the critical level thus reintroducing new water that takes up the space of the released pocket. So something that will overspill its top rim where the gas bubble would be released into an upper pocket while the non-fractured water falls down from the top rim to be returned to the reaction chamber, etc. Let me work on it.
What interests me the most of this HHO business is that if after all this exercise you guys can open up to only one factor, to stop pushing electron science into very damn thing that goes on in OU research and return to the physical causal effect base of nature, then the world will really open for all of us and discoveries, which are normal observation of natural effects by physical atoms will push us way past this stalemate we are living through right now. Yeh yeh, we are good at making snazzier toys, always more complex, more features, but still chock full of the losses we are used too.
wattsup
You might be interested in this as you have written such a long and a very nice POST !! thanks ..
Acca...
http://overunity.com/16579/bike-runs-on-water-100-no-gasoline-microwave-pulse-generator-water-split/msg497183/#new (http://overunity.com/16579/bike-runs-on-water-100-no-gasoline-microwave-pulse-generator-water-split/msg497183/#new)
Quote from: gravityblock on December 14, 2016, 01:25:59 AM
It doesn't matter what the rate of reaction is if you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the method I showed. If the rate of reaction increases, then the flow of water moving through the cell will naturally increase. If the rate of reaction decreases, then the water flowing through the cell will naturally decrease. The water flow through the cell is self-regulating according to the rate of the reaction. More HHO production equals more water flow through the cell. Less HHO production equals less water flow through the cell. The "new rate of reaction" you speak of is totally meaningless when you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the amount of HHO production the cell is generating. The water flow through the cell is naturally linked to the rate of the reaction! There's no need for additional energy to run an external pump! IMO, the best way is to let the cell naturally pump it's own water according to the rate of HHO production.
Gravock
I will let you and everyone else know the truth about this technology and what we all face in having to solve. The now catch phrase, "Keep it simple stupid," is a subjective phrase in that it depends on just who said it. If Nikola Tesla or Albert Ernestine said this then more than likely it would take most of us a lifetime to figure it out. My point is we all underestimated Stanley Meyer as this technology is far from simple.
Here are a few questions that will need answers when going to make use of this technology.
1. What voltage must the injectors be at to break down enough water for the time given for the injection cycle?
2. When the engine is under a load how do I increase the burnable fuel to compensate?
3. What voltage range must the gas processor be at to keep up with varying engine speeds to keep the fuel mixture constant?
4. How much water is needed to be broken down per injection cycle to effectively run the engine in question?
5. How do we keep the burn rate of hydrogen constant under different RPM ranges and loading conditions?
These are just a few questions that need to be answered by everyone attempting to solve this technology so don't you tell me it doesn't matter and/or is meaningless. The voltage to water breakdown rate is needed to run the injectors. Even in some of Meyer's lecture videos he talks about the water fuel cell not being able to supply enough hydrogen due to the water couldn't enter into the resonant cavities fast enough.
You see my background is mechanical and I am a fairly good troubleshooter for that what I was paid to do. I then turned around and went to college for mechanical engineering. With the water injectors they will still have to follow all of the rules of any fuel injected system so it's best you get to know how fuel injection systems work: http://jalopnik.com/how-electronic-fuel-injection-works-499902815 (http://jalopnik.com/how-electronic-fuel-injection-works-499902815) https://www.howacarworks.com/basics/how-a-fuel-injection-system-works. These water fuel injectors will have to break down the water at the proper rate in order to run an engine with water all of this is calculable. Meyer already has told us that the fuel rail pressure will be 120 psi. Each of the injectors will have to be made in matched sets which is to say they must all open at the same pressure or it will mess up the timing big time as you can't have one injector opening at 35 psi while the others open at 120 psi and you definitely can't have them all opening at randomly different pressures. So, with all of this said do you still think us needing to know the voltage to water breakdown rate is meaningless?
I don't mean to discourage anyone from trying to solve this technology but it's imperative that you all know just what you are up against so you can plan accordingly. This technology is not simple as Meyer was a lot smarter than we have given him credit for. Since I follow where the science leads me I have found this out first hand the hard way. There are many questions that need answers but I seem to have a way of asking the right questions and my old troubleshooting skills really have come in handy while I have been trying to solve this technology.
Now Meyer has given us quite a bit of information to work from and thanks to Don Gable giving us some specs of Meyer's devices we can build them just as Meyer did. Now the voltage levels per resonant cavity need to be 1000 volts of potential difference or more which means 500 volts positive and 500 volts negative at a minimum to be able to get this technology working correctly if the resonant cavities are built to Meyer's specifications. If you make changes then your pretty much on your own as then you really can't use any of Meyer's helpful tid bits. Now according to Meyer the injectors need to be at 2000 volts minimum to get them working correctly. So, first things first we must get the voltage up to meet and surpass these voltages Meyer has given to us. Trust me it's a lot easier said than done. After someone solves this problem then it's on to the next problem of just how to get the gas processor up and working correctly.
Now with the water the molecules they are made up of two different atoms but with the air gases the oxygen molecules are made up of the same atoms thus it may be different in how the gas processor and the exciter arrays/injectors work. Just more questions that need answers it seems but answer them we must. It's time to stop playing around with this technology and step up to the plate ready to bat. Just as long as we know what we are up against we stand a good chance of solving this technology.
Being that I am a mechanic I already know that the water must be broken down at a fairly fast rate be it with the injectors or with the resonant cavities of the exciter array to be able to run an engine off of water being it's only source of fuel. And being that I went back to college to gain some much needed understanding of science also helps me to solve some of the problems I run into. This technology is solvable but it's anything but simple. Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method is simple but this voltage dissociation of water isn't. I have posted a few pdf files with the science behind this technology solved but learning how to build it correctly is yet another story for that is where I find myself at right now. I don't have all the answers but I am doing my best to solve this technology one step at a time and in time I might require everyone's help when it comes time to bring this technology to the market place as it must go through mass production to bring the prices down so that everyone can afford this technology.
We can do this,
Ed
Quote from: h20power on December 14, 2016, 03:13:35 PM
I will let you and everyone else know the truth about this technology and what we all face in having to solve. The now catch phrase, "Keep it simple stupid," is a subjective phrase in that it depends on just who said it. If Nikola Tesla or Albert Ernestine said this then more than likely it would take most of us a lifetime to figure it out. My point is we all underestimated Stanley Meyer as this technology is far from simple.
Here are a few questions that will need answers when going to make use of this technology.
1. What voltage must the injectors be at to break down enough water for the time given for the injection cycle?
2. When the engine is under a load how do I increase the burnable fuel to compensate?
3. What voltage range must the gas processor be at to keep up with varying engine speeds to keep the fuel mixture constant?
4. How much water is needed to be broken down per injection cycle to effectively run the engine in question?
5. How do we keep the burn rate of hydrogen constant under different RPM ranges and loading conditions?
These are just a few questions that need to be answered by everyone attempting to solve this technology so don't you tell me it doesn't matter and/or is meaningless. The voltage to water breakdown rate is needed to run the injectors. Even in some of Meyer's lecture videos he talks about the water fuel cell not being able to supply enough hydrogen due to the water couldn't enter into the resonant cavities fast enough.
You see my background is mechanical and I am a fairly good troubleshooter for that what I was paid to do. I then turned around and went to college for mechanical engineering. With the water injectors they will still have to follow all of the rules of any fuel injected system so it's best you get to know how fuel injection systems work: http://jalopnik.com/how-electronic-fuel-injection-works-499902815 (http://jalopnik.com/how-electronic-fuel-injection-works-499902815) https://www.howacarworks.com/basics/how-a-fuel-injection-system-works (https://www.howacarworks.com/basics/how-a-fuel-injection-system-works). These water fuel injectors will have to break down the water at the proper rate in order to run an engine with water all of this is calculable. Meyer already has told us that the fuel rail pressure will be 120 psi. Each of the injectors will have to be made in matched sets which is to say they must all open at the same pressure or it will mess up the timing big time as you can't have one injector opening at 35 psi while the others open at 120 psi and you definitely can't have them all opening at randomly different pressures. So, with all of this said do you still think us needing to know the voltage to water breakdown rate is meaningless?
I don't mean to discourage anyone from trying to solve this technology but it's imperative that you all know just what you are up against so you can plan accordingly. This technology is not simple as Meyer was a lot smarter than we have given him credit for. Since I follow where the science leads me I have found this out first hand the hard way. There are many questions that need answers but I seem to have a way of asking the right questions and my old troubleshooting skills really have come in handy while I have been trying to solve this technology.
Now Meyer has given us quite a bit of information to work from and thanks to Don Gable giving us some specs of Meyer's devices we can build them just as Meyer did. Now the voltage levels per resonant cavity need to be 1000 volts of potential difference or more which means 500 volts positive and 500 volts negative at a minimum to be able to get this technology working correctly if the resonant cavities are built to Meyer's specifications. If you make changes then your pretty much on your own as then you really can't use any of Meyer's helpful tid bits. Now according to Meyer the injectors need to be at 2000 volts minimum to get them working correctly. So, first things first we must get the voltage up to meet and surpass these voltages Meyer has given to us. Trust me it's a lot easier said than done. After someone solves this problem then it's on to the next problem of just how to get the gas processor up and working correctly.
Now with the water the molecules they are made up of two different atoms but with the air gases the oxygen molecules are made up of the same atoms thus it may be different in how the gas processor and the exciter arrays/injectors work. Just more questions that need answers it seems but answer them we must. It's time to stop playing around with this technology and step up to the plate ready to bat. Just as long as we know what we are up against we stand a good chance of solving this technology.
Being that I am a mechanic I already know that the water must be broken down at a fairly fast rate be it with the injectors or with the resonant cavities of the exciter array to be able to run an engine off of water being it's only source of fuel. And being that I went back to college to gain some much needed understanding of science also helps me to solve some of the problems I run into. This technology is solvable but it's anything but simple. Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method is simple but this voltage dissociation of water isn't. I have posted a few pdf files with the science behind this technology solved but learning how to build it correctly is yet another story for that is where I find myself at right now. I don't have all the answers but I am doing my best to solve this technology one step at a time and in time I might require everyone's help when it comes time to bring this technology to the market place as it must go through mass production to bring the prices down so that everyone can afford this technology.
We can do this,
Ed
Yes, the voltage to water breakdown rate is totally meaningless in regards to the flow rate of water through the cell! Please don't take what I previously said out-of-context and throw a broad blanket over it. In a publication titled, "High Voltage Water Breakdown Studies (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a335128.pdf)", by the Defense Special Weapons Agency, says "The flow rate of the water was varied between 126 ml/s and 630 ml/s
with no significant effect seen on EBD or teff. He did observe a difference in the breakdown site on the electrode with a difference in flow rate. The breakdown region intended to be more localized when there was no flow as oppose to a more generalized breakdown region with the higher flow rate". This more generalized breakdown region is the same reason why a pump was suggested to be used in the first place.
I suggest you do some research on gas vapor engines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrm9JzsnGU4). This technology isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be. If we can produce enough Hydrogen on demand efficiently and/or find an efficient and safe storage method, then everything else is simple.
Gravock
@gravityblock
So that is exactly as I had predicted without such info in hand since there is no other explanation. If electrons where involved in the exchange/change phenomena then the effect should have been seen everywhere and not the "localized" without flow, and more regional with flow. If electrons where involved they would not care where or how the flow or no flow was. This confirms simply that this is a physical phenomena and has always been so, but science is just selling everyone an electron fairy tale.
OK in your post there is a big piece of info on their tests. They are saying "The resistivity of the water was varied from 14 mho/cm to 37 mho/cm which is very hard to relate to. OK so let's get this into a known perspective by converting those values to simple parts per million or PPM of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).
14 mho/cm = 8.96e+6 ppm = 8,960,000 ppm or mg/l
37 mho/cm = 2.37e+7 ppm = 2,370,000 ppm or mg/l
OK, so who on this forum can confirm that these two conversions are correct? I think it is but if not please anyone who can confirm of correct please do so. This is very important.
This will provide the main crux of their tests and why they see what they see since this is a direct indication of how much dissolved minerals (blender blades) are present in the solution.
But, if the above is correct, then what is wrong with those numbers? They say "There is no significant effect on breakdown strength with the change of the resistivity of the water". Why?
If anyone has time and some wire, some water, some salt and a conductivity meter and a frequency generator and a scope try the set-up shown below.
OK, so you make the A line which is a 3" length of 12awg copper wire followed by a 1" length of 18 awg then finish with another 3" length of 12 awg. The B line is the same 3" lengths but that are simply turned 90 degrees downward at one end to dunk into a small plastic water container. Now connect your pulse generator on both + and - of A and B so they are in parallel. Place just the scope probe only at the Ch1 and Ch2. As you pulse and see both waveforms add salt to the water container and see how the CH2 waveform changes. Measure the conductivity of the water at each salt addition.
If you can make a video showing this then you will have lots to talk about to explain the effects shown.
wattsup
@ Gravityblock,
We are talking about two totally different processes and you are mixing the two up based on someone else's work whom doesn't understand how Meyer did what he did one bit. There is a needed voltage to be at to cause the electrons to leave the atoms they are bound too and that is called ionization. This is the threshold voltage that Meyer is talking about when he told us that the resonant cavities require 1000 volts or more of potential difference per resonant cavity. You see if you never reach these voltages while restricting the flow of amps it simply doesn't work. This is why so many have tried and failed to duplicate Meyer's work as they look to others whom have little to no understanding of just what Meyer did to break the bonds of water molecules in a way that is totally outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method.
You want to know just who's experiments I am listening too? My own as I am like Tinman in that I am actually on the ground doing the work following the scientific method as I am no armchair scientist whom never makes it to the lab. You seem to fail to understand one primary thing about this technology and that one thing is that this technology is new to the world of science so you aren't going to find anything to read about it in our old books of science. You see this time you have to be the one that does the work for there simply is no way around that this time around. I understood this many years ago and started in with real world experiments from which to gather my data from.
This technology isn't all that different than ionizing molecular gases. The primary difference is this water molecule is made up of two different atoms who's ionization energies are just about the same being that hydrogen is 1312.0 and oxygen is 1313.9 kJ/mol. From what I have found out actually performing these experiments is in order to separate the electrons from these two atoms there must be a positive and a negative voltage in order to do so which I showed in the pdf file titled, "The Voltage Dissociation of the Water." I also took the time to post the new theory behind this technology which is complete with supporting evidence. I take it you have read none of these, correct?
There is one thing that truly stands out about the work I am doing in comparison to others and that one thing is I am able to put a really high voltage potential difference directly to plates in contact with the water. As of right now I don't know of any one else that is also doing this for they have not made themselves known to me or anyone else for that matter in a public forum. Trust me when I say it isn't easy to put a high voltage potential difference on some metal plates, or tubes in my case, that are in direct contact with water for it is a direct short condition just as Meyer talks about. So, when I talk about this technology you should pay attention as I am actually performing the experiments. When I say we are going to need to know, "The Voltage to Water Breakdown Rate," trust me we will for I am not pulling my information from someone else whom is doing nothing like what Meyer was doing.
In the past I have shown just how I have the VIC transformer hooked up and guess what it is exactly how Don Gable shows it to be hooked up so no one can say they don't know how to hook it up correctly. The problem is not that they can't learn but rather they refuse to learn how to follow someone else's lead concerning this technology. Just like most people when I first made a VIC transformer and hooked it up to my makeshift exciter array I only got 10 volts to the cell. With a lot of trial and error experimenting I managed to get up to 4.2kv in 2013 which I showed to the whole world at the 2013 Global BEM that was held in Boulder, Colorado. I kept at with many more trial and error type experiments and am now up to 9.4kv of potential difference being applied directly to the water in the exciter array which is to be divided by ten as I have ten resonant cavities in the exciter array I am using. So I am getting close to Meyer's stated requirements of 1000 volts or more of potential difference per resonant cavity now. But as I have stated in the past this is an all or nothing type technology as the atoms aren't going to ionize until the right voltage for them to do so has been reached. For it is no different from boiling water at STP for will the water boil at 94°C? Nope, as this is science and at STP the water will boil when it reaches 100°C not before and the same goes for when the atoms will ionize. This will be the last time I post these pdf files in this thread showing what I have discovered while working at solving Meyer's technology the old fashion way by way of trial and error making use of the scientific method.
Now as far as the water's resistance Meyer had to design the VIC transformer so that it was capable of breaking down all types of natural water sources with the worst case being that of ocean water. I am not there yet but I truly feel I am getting close now to understanding just how to design these VIC transformers and my work does suggest that I am on the right track for I have been increasing the voltage being applied to the exciter array over time.
Ed
H2o nailed it on the head.
You guys are correct to throw away 'electron' based thinking
At high voltages, the electrons all run away.
That is what affects this process. Electrons are what bond the atoms
At the point of ionization the bonds are broken
This happens along the current path.
- which by the way is disturbed by pumps
Causing the ranges of gas production to occur across
a larger area. The entire current path moves with the water.
At the same time this current path develops
And begins to discharge the voltage potential
A micro-arc forms inside the current path
These arcs may or may not be visible
Depending on the potential and capacity
of your system.
Temperatures increase inside the arc, lowering impedance.
Which intensifies the arc over a time gradient.
Although not always visible to us, these arcs do still produce radiation
just like any other HV electric arc.
Centered around the UV spectrum where, coincidentally,
water naturally breaks down.
( lightning is responsible for a majority of the natural hydrogen
in our atmosphere.)
This, combined with a gap distance and resonant cavity tuned to
One of waters natural vibrational/rotational frequencies
Can provide a trifecta of natural separation stages in the Hydrogen Cycle.
Where the energy levels of the water molecule cause it to separate on its' own.
This process is much different from
the brute-force approach with low voltage DC electrolysis.
These processes steer us from electrochemistry into organic chemistry.
Or a sort of 'cyborg' integration of the two.
So if you strip all the electrons in order to Ionize the atoms, then shouldn't all the gas be coming off the Cathode?
Quote from: Bttr2brnout on December 19, 2016, 01:43:35 PM
So if you strip all the electrons in order to Ionize the atoms, then shouldn't all the gas be coming off the Cathode?
No, as the water molecule is made up of two different atoms one is ionized by a positive voltage and the other is ionized by a negative voltage. From my understanding the gas production will take place right in the center of the two electrodes if the positive and negative voltages are balanced.
Quote from: Bttr2brnout on December 19, 2016, 01:43:35 PM
So if you strip all the electrons in order to Ionize the atoms, then shouldn't all the gas be coming off the Cathode?
This is exactly what I've been working on. I've been designing and building a HHO generator that uses the principals of a vortex air lift pump
1 to raise the water to feed a Kelvin Water Dropper generator to strip the "so-called electrons" for ionization and to build a high voltage potential.
1.) Performance Characteristics of Airlift Pumps with Vortex Induced by Tangential Fluid Injection (http://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=honors_theses)
Gravock
Titanium ... My friend Rick did a test with Medical grade 1/8th X 9 inch titanium rods. Tap water, 35 volts, 1.75 amps for 1/2 hour.
Doesn't look good as one rod severely pitted after just the one run. He notes that home ionizers use Platinum coated Titanium.
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on December 21, 2016, 04:48:53 PM
Titanium ... My friend Rick did a test with Medical grade 1/8th X 9 inch titanium rods. Tap water, 35 volts, 1.75 amps for 1/2 hour.
Doesn't look good as one rod severely pitted after just the one run. He notes that home ionizers use Platinum coated Titanium.
Ron
Thats no good..
What about graphite , carbon, ferrite, quarts or other conductive minerals ?
Just a hasty pic of my setup, 15 volts, first run, tap water, a small leak, no gas... happy!
Ron
Edit: Not unexpected ... TDS is 021 (Total Disolved Solids)
Quote from: Cherryman on December 21, 2016, 06:36:35 PM
Thats no good..
What about graphite , carbon, ferrite, quarts or other conductive minerals ?
Lead is an interesting anode. It initially makes no oxygen as it forms a layer of oxide. This oxide is special as it conducts unlike other oxides and only forms a thin adhesive layer. Eventually oxygen begins bubbling. The lead seems to last for ever, unlike stainless which often oxidises under heavy currents forming a brown liquid probably full of toxic Cr 6+.
I can't remember the exact conditions but I managed to make ozone using lead electrodes in sodium carbonate solution with 20 or so volts. It came as quite a shock to smell the distinctive smell of ozone as at the time I did not know that ozone can be made by electrolysis of water.
Quote from: Pomodoro
I can't remember the exact conditions but I managed to make ozone using lead electrodes in sodium carbonate solution with 20 or so volts. It came as quite a shock to smell the distinctive smell of ozone as at the time I did not know that ozone can be made by electrolysis of water.
That is a most interesting observation. It is possible to generate
Ozone by electrolysis of certain salts but this (Sodium Carbonate)
is one I hadn't heard of. Perhaps it is possible with Sodium
Bi-Carbonate (Baking Soda) as well. Certainly worth a try.
It is possible that the Lead Dioxide electrode is a necessity and
that it functions as a catalyst for the generation of Ozone.
Quote from: pomodoro on December 23, 2016, 06:19:32 PM
Lead is an interesting anode. It initially makes no oxygen as it forms a layer of oxide. This oxide is special as it conducts unlike other oxides and only forms a thin adhesive layer. Eventually oxygen begins bubbling. The lead seems to last for ever, unlike stainless which often oxidises under heavy currents forming a brown liquid probably full of toxic Cr 6+.
I can't remember the exact conditions but I managed to make ozone using lead electrodes in sodium carbonate solution with 20 or so volts. It came as quite a shock to smell the distinctive smell of ozone as at the time I did not know that ozone can be made by electrolysis of water.
Hmm I like it, lead is interesting...
They keep finding once in a while very ancient perfectly conserved bodies in lead coffins and a "special" fluid ..
It could be a conservational formula.. in more ways as one.
In our country lead is still considered as a good weather (long time) influence resistant material on roofs
In Alchemy it is a step-stone to gold * smile*
I do wonder if the oxidized layer has influence in production.[/size]
Would it be coïncedential if it would "lead"the way ?
A few weeks later s colleague needed to test some ozone detectors and I proubly mentioned that I could generate some for him without using sparks. I had packed up my electrolysis experiment by then so I used some stainless I had laying around. This time I was embarrassed as the same volts and carbonate failed to make any ozone. I figured the lead oxide electrode is a requirement for ozone production. Its easy enough for anyone to replicate, the voltage was between 20 to 30v, electrodes were lead strips about 1/4 to 1/2 inch wide and solution was DI water with enough carbonate to give plenty of bubbles but not too much as to lower the voltage required. Bicarb could work, otherwise boil the bicarb solution as it turns into carbonate in just a few mins.
Any updates on this investigation, its been months.
Quote from: pomodoro on December 23, 2016, 06:19:32 PM
Lead is an interesting anode. It initially makes no oxygen as it forms a layer of oxide. This oxide is special as it conducts unlike other oxides and only forms a thin adhesive layer. Eventually oxygen begins bubbling. The lead seems to last for ever, unlike stainless which often oxidises under heavy currents forming a brown liquid probably full of toxic Cr 6+.
I can't remember the exact conditions but I managed to make ozone using lead electrodes in sodium carbonate solution with 20 or so volts. It came as quite a shock to smell the distinctive smell of ozone as at the time I did not know that ozone can be made by electrolysis of water.
Not ozone because the ozone gas(O3) only forms at high voltages on the ambient air.But seems like Chlorine(CI) which is used in the bleach. ;D
Quote from: pomodoro on December 23, 2016, 06:19:32 PM
Lead is an interesting anode. It initially makes no oxygen as it forms a layer of oxide. This oxide is special as it conducts unlike other oxides and only forms a thin adhesive layer. Eventually oxygen begins bubbling. The lead seems to last for ever, unlike stainless which often oxidises under heavy currents forming a brown liquid probably full of toxic Cr 6+.
I can't remember the exact conditions but I managed to make ozone using lead electrodes in sodium carbonate solution with 20 or so volts. It came as quite a shock to smell the distinctive smell of ozone as at the time I did not know that ozone can be made by electrolysis of water.
Hi pomodoro,here is also a quote from wikipedia;"Ozone's odour is sharp, reminiscent of chlorine".
QuoteI did not know that ozone can be made by electrolysis of water.
The high current density electrolysis of cooled mildly concentrated sulfuric or (even better) perchloric acid with lead or platinum anode is traditionally recommended for production of ozone in high concentrations (albeit the corona discharge in dry pure oxygen is more convenient). These solutions can be cooled down to -50 °C without freezing and the concentration of ozone reaches nearly 20% of gas produced (http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/93/5/211.abstract) after then.
Quote from: MagnaProp on December 01, 2016, 11:21:10 PM
Could Tinman's system be used in a boat to power its self?...
Self powered hydrogen boat called the Energy Observer is launched. http://www.energy-observer.org/en/#actu (http://www.energy-observer.org/en/#actu)
I want to know when the HHO Tinman tugboat sets sail. As an admirer of his work I don't doubt it would be more efficient.
As far as I can tell there are three totally difference methods to use to break the bonds of the water molecules. One way is known to most in the scientific community as "Electrolysis" which was discovered in the mid 1800's or late 1700's. This is the absolute worst way to go about breaking the bonds of the water molecules. The electrolysis method is very energy intensive, added pollutants to our environment, and it turns good drinking water into poison. The other two methods are not so well known to the scientific community but many of us here know or have heard about. The voltage dissociation[/size] of the water molecules and the harmonic dissociation of the water molecules.
The guy here in this video has the harmonic way to break the bonds of the water molecules https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KdcBoo5f0Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KdcBoo5f0Q) but he has no idea how to defeat the powers that be and his technology is just starting off having to go through their blocking processes designed to prevent technologies like these from becoming mainstream. He needs patents and a whole lot of other things before this technology can become viable and I am not sure he is up to the task of taking on those that sell energy right now.
The last of the three technologies is that of Dr. Dingle, Stanley Meyer, and a few others that figured it out, but it is Meyer that did all the work needed to get past the blocking of those that sell energy. Now that his patents are in the public domain anyone that figures it out can go right into mass production with it so that it is made affordable for the masses as that's the way the markets work. Open Source doesn't work for any technology that requires materials for it to be made as Open Source works for things like computer programs, software, and things that do not really exist in the real world. So if one tried to build just one of these known as making a "One Off" they are going to spend around $15k in trying to build a working Meyer type cell as those are the cost of building a "One Off," which is the most expensive way to go about building anything. With a show of hands how many of you have $15k to spend just to get the base system, consisting of the electronics and the complete voltage intensifier circuit, of Meyer's technology up and running? How many around the world have this kind of money to spend just to get something that can break the bonds of the water molecules and then have to turn around and buy other things so that they can actually make use of it, how many of you out there can afford this? Trust me as I know just what I am talking about for I have built these things and know just how much they cost to have made so I can tell you first hand most of you out there simply can not afford to build a "One Off." This is why this technology must go into mass production so that it will be affordable to the masses that need it most as to just dump the plans online will require the world to build "One Off's," and as I have just shown you most of the world's population can't afford to build a "One Off." So, when a company like mines shows up you are to give that company your full support if you want to see this technology ever make it to the marketplace in an affordable manor so that the masses can actually afford to buy it.
But anyway getting back to the topic at hand. These three ways are what we have to break the bonds of the water molecules and of those three ways only one is ready to go that is not energy intensive and destructive to our environment that has the ability to get past all of the blocking put in place by the powers that be and that technology is Meyer's technology as his patents are now in the public domain. So, the Voltage Dissociation of the water molecules is our best hope towards becoming energy independent right now and people need to get the idea out of their heads that Free Energy means that the technology will be cost free as that is a false view of reality.
The h2 powered catamaran sure looks great, but its hard to get real info about it. Is it really h2 powered or is it another multi million dollar scam? My money is that its another scam. You may wonder why as it does sound like a plausible project. Well , unless its powered by luquified hydrogen, produced in Iceland, the project is not going to work all that well. The boat seems to make power from the sun and convert extra energy into making hydrogen from sea water, which can be used at night as a power source, that's what I think it pretends to do. Well for a start, assuming it has enough solar panels to propel itself and make some hydrogen, it seems that hydrogen is not the best way to store electrical power. Batteries are superior from what I've read on the subject. But the real problem is that they claim to make hydrogen from sea water. In that case, instead of getting pure oxygen as the byproduct, they will get a lot of nasty chlorine gas as well. About as environmentally friendly as mustard gas. There are a lot of nasty characters out there pretending to be nice and saving the world, keep an eye on these innovators for sure as they sure smell fishy.
Same goes for Peter Painter, burning methanol in a testube and saying it was hydrogen.
Quote from: h20power on July 17, 2017, 01:01:24 PM
As far as I can tell there are three totally difference methods to use to break the bonds of the water molecules. One way is known to most in the scientific community as "Electrolysis" which was discovered in the mid 1800's or late 1700's. This is the absolute worst way to go about breaking the bonds of the water molecules. The electrolysis method is very energy intensive, added pollutants to our environment, and it turns good drinking water into poison. The other two methods are not so well known to the scientific community but many of us here know or have heard about. The voltage dissociation[/size] of the water molecules and the harmonic dissociation of the water molecules.
The guy here in this video has the harmonic way to break the bonds of the water molecules https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KdcBoo5f0Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KdcBoo5f0Q) but he has no idea how to defeat the powers that be and his technology is just starting off having to go through their blocking processes designed to prevent technologies like these from becoming mainstream. He needs patents and a whole lot of other things before this technology can become viable and I am not sure he is up to the task of taking on those that sell energy right now.
The last of the three technologies is that of Dr. Dingle, Stanley Meyer, and a few others that figured it out, but it is Meyer that did all the work needed to get past the blocking of those that sell energy. Now that his patents are in the public domain anyone that figures it out can go right into mass production with it so that it is made affordable for the masses as that's the way the markets work. Open Source doesn't work for any technology that requires materials for it to be made as Open Source works for things like computer programs, software, and things that do not really exist in the real world. So if one tried to build just one of these known as making a "One Off" they are going to spend around $15k in trying to build a working Meyer type cell as those are the cost of building a "One Off," which is the most expensive way to go about building anything. With a show of hands how many of you have $15k to spend just to get the base system, consisting of the electronics and the complete voltage intensifier circuit, of Meyer's technology up and running? How many around the world have this kind of money to spend just to get something that can break the bonds of the water molecules and then have to turn around and buy other things so that they can actually make use of it, how many of you out there can afford this? Trust me as I know just what I am talking about for I have built these things and know just how much they cost to have made so I can tell you first hand most of you out there simply can not afford to build a "One Off." This is why this technology must go into mass production so that it will be affordable to the masses that need it most as to just dump the plans online will require the world to build "One Off's," and as I have just shown you most of the world's population can't afford to build a "One Off." So, when a company like mines shows up you are to give that company your full support if you want to see this technology ever make it to the marketplace in an affordable manor so that the masses can actually afford to buy it.
But anyway getting back to the topic at hand. These three ways are what we have to break the bonds of the water molecules and of those three ways only one is ready to go that is not energy intensive and destructive to our environment that has the ability to get past all of the blocking put in place by the powers that be and that technology is Meyer's technology as his patents are now in the public domain. So, the Voltage Dissociation of the water molecules is our best hope towards becoming energy independent right now and people need to get the idea out of their heads that Free Energy means that the technology will be cost free as that is a false view of reality.
There is a 4th way,which i am working on now-submerged carbon arc gas production.
Seems that there is also much talk of LENR associated with it-time will tell..
From this single system,you get carbohydrogen gas,heat and light output.
All these added together should result in COP>1.
Brad
Quote from: pomodoro on July 17, 2017, 08:03:55 PM
The h2 powered catamaran sure looks great, but its hard to get real info about it. Is it really h2 powered or is it another multi million dollar scam? My money is that its another scam. You may wonder why as it does sound like a plausible project. Well , unless its powered by luquified hydrogen, produced in Iceland, the project is not going to work all that well. The boat seems to make power from the sun and convert extra energy into making hydrogen from sea water, which can be used at night as a power source, that's what I think it pretends to do. Well for a start, assuming it has enough solar panels to propel itself and make some hydrogen, it seems that hydrogen is not the best way to store electrical power. Batteries are superior from what I've read on the subject. But the real problem is that they claim to make hydrogen from sea water. In that case, instead of getting pure oxygen as the byproduct, they will get a lot of nasty chlorine gas as well. About as environmentally friendly as mustard gas. There are a lot of nasty characters out there pretending to be nice and saving the world, keep an eye on these innovators for sure as they sure smell fishy.
Same goes for Peter Painter, burning methanol in a testube and saying it was hydrogen.
I too wonder about these people but one thing I do know to be true is Meyer did all of the dirty work for us. Anyone that gets his technology up and running doesn't have to go through any scientific peer review panels nor will they have to ask for permission from any local governments as Meyer held world patents which are all now in the public domain. I have been waging a battle in trying to get people to fully understand just what is good for Open Source and what is not good for Open Source. Most people haven't the guts to ask and answer the real questions I put on the table nor do they seem to wish to talk about it at all. Nope, they seem to prefer the head in the sand approach acting like the rules of the markets simply don't apply to them. I put the truth or reality if you will of just what we have to do in order to get where it is we need to go. Some have tried in the past to toss in some dream-like ideas wrapped in words that make them sound like the truth but almost none wish to talk about actual reality.
I understand a little about what Peter Painter has done but I also know that he has already messed up in letting what he has done out before he has all the patents. rights, and all else that goes with it in a complete and legal manor so therefore he can, and more than likely will, be blocked. Meyer didn't make that mistake. As for that boat around the world thing it's true that it would work better with storage batteries as without Meyer's technology the use of hydrogen will always give a loss in efficiency. Meyer's technology is a energy generator and in that it has the power to replace all other forms and methods of energy generation. But it wouldn't be wise to just do away with other clean sources of power generation like solar and battery energy storage systems.
It has taken me a long time to get this far with my understanding of just how Meyer's technology actually works and I made sure to pass on the true science behind the patents. It wasn't easy for me to figure out an entirely new way that mother nature has been doing years before we humans ever even knew what electricity was. In fact in forums like these those whom tell lies about this technology have steered people so far away from the truth of how this technology actually works that the truth seems like a lie. When I tell people that it works exactly like a thunderstorm I get a lot of laughs from people as that is not what the so-called leaders of this movement say about this technology. I remember being laughed out of the room when I talked about how a plant actually breaks the bonds of the water molecules and how Meyer's technology was doing practically the same thing, IE, taking away the electrons from the atoms that make up the water molecules as that is the final mechanism in photosynthesis before the water molecules are broken down into their component atoms. I showed this to everyone and as I said was laughed out the room as it would seem no one truly understands real science and in a lot of these forums there has been a push to do away with sound scientific practices due to the greed and corruption of the scientific community. Some have even told me to take my scientific method, as if I was the one whom created it, and put it where the sun doesn't shine. But I just push all that aside as I understand that the way people have been programmed by their TV's is strong and anything that bucks the scientific norm it taught by the TV's programming to be a scam.
But the powers that be also sent in people to these forums to add doubt in the minds of the masses so that true science or progress for that matter is completely ignored. In 2013 I showed for the very first time ever in a provable way that high voltage can be applied to the excitor array using Meyer's VIC transformer and you should have seen the mountain of negative comments I received for being the first one to do such a thing. What has shocked me since that time is almost no one has had the guts to follow what I did to reach those high voltages as to the best of my knowledge no one has ever reached the 4.2kv I showed I was applying directly to the water bath in the excitor array yet. What was even more shocking was the so-called leaders all banded together to tell everyone I was heading in the wrong direction when I started to make improvements in the amount of voltage I was able to apply to the excitor array. Some even went as far to say that high voltage wasn't the way to go which made Meyer and all of his video lectures out to be totally bogus as that is all he ever talked about, IE, restricting the flow of amps and allowing voltage to take over. I will admit I have been stuck at 9.4kv for a while now but I feel I finally got it and with the next transformer should reach Meyer's stated minimum voltage required to get this technology working which is 1kv per resonant cavity. In the forums when I would show progress all it did in the end was to get me kicked out of those forums. I got a lot of hate for sharing my work and I think that's all due to some paid personnel planted by the power elite in forums like these so that they could keep things the way they are.
People will remember these times especially those whom stood in the way of progress. People have aired hour long shows about how I am misleading people and some have even written books about it. The one thing I do know, though an am not very found of it, is I am the leader in this hydrogen revolution when it comes to Meyer's technology. I am the one whom took the time to build things correctly, I am the one whom spent his dimes on getting the necessary measuring equipment to accurately read and view this technology, and I am the one whom took after the core science behind this technology. Now to be honest I don't like this role, but now that I have a more complete understanding of just how Open Source works I'm glad it turned out to be me as someone else might have gotten it wrong. Sure it's true I don't have all the answers yet but I do know where it is I am heading so I am able to troubleshoot problems in the right direction.
When I look at this "Energy Observer" I think of how things would need to be changed when making use of this method of water separation. First of all they wouldn't need anywhere near that many solar panels and they wouldn't need any hydrogen storage tanks, well, not as many as I think just one will do the trick to act as a buffer to keep the hydrogen flowing at the proper rate for the hydrogen full cell and all water that was created by the hydrogen fuel cell would be recaptured and sent back to the water tank to be reused. It's entire layout would be totally different if this technology was put to use in that vessel as this technology is an energy generator where we have the power of a thunderstorm in the palm of our hands, to steal a phase from Spider Man. One of the drawbacks of using an excitor array is it needs to be kept clean and if sea water was used it would have to be flushed quite often as all the particulates in the water would remain in the cell and begin to build up over time while the exciter array is in use. But to get around that as I stated before all the water created by the hydrogen fuel cell would be captured and put back in the water tank for reuse. So it can start off on pure sea water but over time it would be using water that was generated by the hydrogen fuel cell which would be free of any particulates that would mess up the way the exciter array works. Most people that I talk to about this technology have no idea that this is a drawback in making use of the excitor array, but was something that was solved when making use of the water fuel injectors for an internal combustion engine. Something else people don't understand about this technology is it is carbon negative in that any engine that is converted to run on this technology would run about cleaning the air as the engine was operated as the air would come out of the tailpipe cleaner than the air that was drawn into the intake system. All in all this technology's use would really change the layout plans of that vessel they are using. Plus you are right in that they are planning to make use of that garbage electrolysis method which is a total waste of energy and would spit out all of those nasty gases you mentioned so it's really a bad idea as they haven't the right technology to break the bonds of the water molecules yet.
Now everyone can see that there are three methods of breaking the bonds of the water molecules and who knows there might be more but one must make use of the scientific method and start asking and answering questions with real world experiments to find out if there are any more methods out there that will break the bonds of the water molecules in a manor that is far more efficient that Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. I looked to nature and our creator for answers in how to go about breaking the water molecules down in a far more efficient manor than Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method and I give all the glory to our creator.
Well, keep up the hard work and hopefully one day you will have some results to give us, particularly power in vs hydrogen production. I'm also interested in the temperature of the water, it should cool down dramatically. Tinman has kept quiet with his electrolysis experiments, so its hard to know if he succeeded in wiping the floor with Faraday's corpse.
Quote from: pomodoro on July 18, 2017, 02:25:37 AM
Well, keep up the hard work and hopefully one day you will have some results to give us, particularly power in vs hydrogen production. I'm also interested in the temperature of the water, it should cool down dramatically. Tinman has kept quiet with his electrolysis experiments, so its hard to know if he succeeded in wiping the floor with Faraday's corpse.
If you were to follow what I put out in a pdf file entitled, "The Voltage Dissociation of Water" you will already have what it takes to not have the water heat up. I go over the science and tell why the water doesn't heat up in that pdf file. But like Tinman I too don't share all that much and perhaps a whole lot less than he does at the moment. I will tell you that I have run my setup for over 24 hours straight taking temperature readings every 30 minutes and noted that the water temps follow the temperature rises and falls of the day. I find it pointless to share when I know already that no one can afford to build these things for they will all hit the "One Off" prices I have been talking about, so what's the point in sharing? The price for the transformer cores is $358.40 plus shipping charges for each pair. The cost to have the bobbins made will set you back another $3000 and you still have no wire to put into it or a properly built excitor array to hook it up too. I know people can't afford these things so again why bother sharing my experiments when I know no one will be able to duplicate my work? I posted the science behind all of this and not a soul has even tried to duplicate the waveform shown in the pdf file. The only thing I can do to make a difference is to get the technology to the market place in working order so that people can have a chance to buy it already fully working and ready to go.
Now if the people will not rally behind me then this technology will once again go into the trash bin of history as without support no technology can survive. So, when the time comes I hope people step up to the plate and support this technology.
Ni|Ag|(OH-) + heat = ?
Quote from: pomodoro on July 18, 2017, 02:25:37 AM
Well, keep up the hard work and hopefully one day you will have some results to give us, particularly power in vs hydrogen production. I'm also interested in the temperature of the water, it should cool down dramatically. Tinman has kept quiet with his electrolysis experiments, so its hard to know if he succeeded in wiping the floor with Faraday's corpse.
Wont be to long,and we will know if we have a system with a COP>1.
The PlazArc reactor is almost complete--testing will start very soon--by this weekend at latest.
Brad
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!
Quote from: pomodoro on July 18, 2017, 07:10:32 AM
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
Quote from: pomodoro on July 18, 2017, 07:10:32 AM
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.
Quote from: h20power on July 18, 2017, 11:58:00 AM
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
Quote from: Magluvin on July 18, 2017, 10:04:22 PM
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.
Quote from: h20power on July 19, 2017, 01:34:57 AM
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?
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.
Well we look at different data. The ice is going to melt. That is the time line in history. The elitists want to cash in on it saying we can make the difference. Its going to happen no matter what we do. There are many more dire problems they should be dealing with like what to do about all the nuke plants that are out of date and how to really get rid of the waste materials.
If you look into indoor growing, in japan they pull 1000 heads of lettuce a day off of indoor spiral farming. And the pot industry, they use co2 tanks to get the plants to grow at much faster rates than in the outdoors. So I cant agree that we are near a point that outdoor co2 is bad for plants. But those plants are converting that co2 to make oxygen.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 19, 2017, 04:12:29 AM
Well we look at different data. The ice is going to melt. That is the time line in history. The elitists want to cash in on it saying we can make the difference. Its going to happen no matter what we do. There are many more dire problems they should be dealing with like what to do about all the nuke plants that are out of date and how to really get rid of the waste materials.
If you look into indoor growing, in japan they pull 1000 heads of lettuce a day off of indoor spiral farming. And the pot industry, they use co2 tanks to get the plants to grow at much faster rates than in the outdoors. So I cant agree that we are near a point that outdoor co2 is bad for plants. But those plants are converting that co2 to make oxygen.
Mags
You seem to have a problem reading what I wrote as our primary problem is we are converting far more o2 into something else with the use of fossil fuels than the plants can put out. The oxygen levels are dropping for as pf now we are actually under 21%. When I wrote co that stands for carbon monoxide, NOx stand for nitrogen monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen trioxide plants don't really like these gases. Here is a short article on the dropping oxygen levels so we can be on the same page: http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/ (http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/) Now Meyer spoke about this problem in some of his lecture videos as he too could see that all of these fuels we are burning are taking more oxygen out of our atmosphere than the plants can put in it. We are no longer in equilibrium with nature due to the use of these fossil fuels. Now I hear you about what to do with all of this radioactive waste but we have to tackle one problem at a time. It is possible that this technology also holds the key to turning radioactive waste into a nonreactive substance but I am not their yet in my understanding of this technology.
So, as I stated Tinman is now creating something to further deplete our oxygen levels which is heading in the wrong direction. Sure it looks nice and probably puts on a great show but if it's end result is to take away oxygen from our breathable air supply it's heading in the wrong direction. When you think of any technology that will be used to replace the use of fossil fuels you have to think on a global scale. Solar, wind, geothermal, and a few other technologies out there plus Meyer's technology have the power to create energy without using up any oxygen in our air supply. These are the types of technologies we need to take over the use of fossil fuels, and the use of any Nuclear power plant usage. In fact the entire grid system also needs to be done away with as that is part of the elites energy enslavement system for it truly severs no other purpose.
When I look at these types of disruptive technologies I look at them in a global use scale and ask; What impact will it have if it is put into mass use? What type of waste products will it leave? Are the materials used a finite resource or are they renewable? Will the use of the technology serve to improve the lives of humanity or make things worse?
You see I'm a big picture type of guy and I tend to ask the right questions for I remember well what Meyer said in telling us, "We must learn to ask the right questions." Plus I had a lot of help from my college professors of old, plus my father and mother. This water for fuel technology is the best fit for replacing the use of fossil fuels for the entire globe as it is non polluting, makes use of some renewable materials, and it's source of fuel is really only borrowed as it doesn't consume the water it uses as you start off with water and you end up with water.
So, I hope this clears things up as to why I don't like this new direction Tinman is taking as to me it is a non-viable solution to the problems this world is facing. Now looking on the bright side, "You never know unless you try."
"It
is possible that this technology also holds the key to
turning radioactive waste into a nonreactive
substance"
Ina flash yes
A chemist of your caliber knows better than that Dr. Profits,
No MIB for this one, oxidation of the Carbon to CO adds energy.
Carbon is a fuel. Still looks like a good experiment when Tinman gets to power the sucker. Should work with AC only as there is no electrolysis. Tungsten rods are probably next on list.
Here is a quick first run of the reactor.
It is consuming the small rods quite fast,but i believe that the rods are of poor quality.
This is running on an AC- around 11 amps at 34-36 volts.
It is producing about 3LPM of raw gas-not dried-so an MMW of 8.02 :)
The new,larger reactor is already under construction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWCFNt3Tu_I
Brad
Quote from: profitis on July 19, 2017, 06:43:01 AM
"It
is possible that this technology also holds the key to
turning radioactive waste into a nonreactive
substance"
Ina flash yes
The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sG9_OplUK8) (LFTR) is the technology holding the key to turn radioactive waste into a nonreactive substance.
Gravock
"(LFTR) is the
technology holding the key to turn radioactive waste
into a nonreactive substance."
That and a myriad of other ways I foresee yes
Quote from: profitis on July 19, 2017, 07:32:51 AM
"(LFTR) is the
technology holding the key to turn radioactive waste
into a nonreactive substance."
That and a myriad of other ways I foresee yes
Please list the myriad of other ways.
Thanks,
Gravock
Quote from: tinman on July 19, 2017, 07:15:29 AM
Here is a quick first run of the reactor.
It is consuming the small rods quite fast,but i believe that the rods are of poor quality.
This is running on an AC- around 11 amps at 34-36 volts.
It is producing about 3LPM of raw gas-not dried-so an MMW of 8.02 :)
The new,larger reactor is already under construction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWCFNt3Tu_I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWCFNt3Tu_I)
Brad
Very good! Unfortunately though, no carbon loss = no gas. The H2 : CO volume ratio is always 1:1. You may be able to thermally decompose a little water, but its a very lossy method.
"Please list the myriad of other ways."
Put me in a lab and I"l find that list for u and more mr gravock.I'm pretty sure those who already are in labs are looking.if they haven't found a list yet they will,,oh yes sir-ee they will
Quote from: pomodoro on July 19, 2017, 07:48:18 AM
Very good! Unfortunately though, no carbon loss = no gas. The H2 : CO volume ratio is always 1:1. You may be able to thermally decompose a little water, but its a very lossy method.
But what happens when you account for all energy output from the system?--
1-the energy in the gas being produced
2-the energy required to raise the temperature of a volume of water
3-the light output from the system.
Brad
Normal electolysis requires about 240kJ/mole from your electrical supply minimum.
Reacting carbon with water requires only 131kJ/mole. The difference is not free, its from the reaction C+0.5O2-->CO which gives 110kJ/mole.
Because you have a very high temp arc, more heat is wasted than in normal electrolysis due to the heat transfer between the water at 100C and the arc at 1000+ C, so you will get boiling.
When you burn the gas you get the same heat from the hydrogen as you would with HHO plus additional whopping 283kJ/mole from CO+0.5O2 ---->CO2
Overall you used electrically 131kJ+heat&boil water but you get back 240kJ from burning hydrogen and 283kj from burning CO.
So yes, there is a gain but its at the expense of the carbon.
Beware , according to wikipedia one breath only of just 3% CO can kill ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning#Acute_poisoning
Quote from: pomodoro on July 20, 2017, 12:59:04 AM
Normal electolysis requires about 240kJ/mole from your electrical supply minimum.
Reacting carbon with water requires only 131kJ/mole. The difference is not free, its from the reaction C+0.5O2-->CO which gives 110kJ/mole.
Because you have a very high temp arc, more heat is wasted than in normal electrolysis due to the heat transfer between the water at 100C and the arc at 1000+ C, so you will get boiling.
When you burn the gas you get the same heat from the hydrogen as you would with HHO plus additional whopping 283kJ/mole from CO+0.5O2 ---->CO2
Overall you used electrically 131kJ+heat&boil water but you get back 240kJ from burning hydrogen and 283kj from burning CO.
Beware , according to wikipedia one breath only of just 3% CO can kill ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning#Acute_poisoning
QuoteSo yes, there is a gain but its at the expense of the carbon.
I think there is more to it than just carbon loss.
There is much talk of an LENR event happening within this type of system.
Quote from: pomodoro on July 20, 2017, 12:59:04 AM
Normal electolysis requires about 240kJ/mole from your electrical supply minimum.
Reacting carbon with water requires only 131kJ/mole. The difference is not free, its from the reaction C+0.5O2-->CO which gives 110kJ/mole.
Because you have a very high temp arc, more heat is wasted than in normal electrolysis due to the heat transfer between the water at 100C and the arc at 1000+ C, so you will get boiling.
When you burn the gas you get the same heat from the hydrogen as you would with HHO plus additional whopping 283kJ/mole from CO+0.5O2 ---->CO2
Overall you used electrically 131kJ+heat&boil water but you get back 240kJ from burning hydrogen and 283kj from burning CO.
So yes, there is a gain but its at the expense of the carbon.
Beware , according to wikipedia one breath only of just 3% CO can kill ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning#Acute_poisoning
Pomodoro
What is the energy value of say 100 grams of carbon-the type that is used in carbon rods such as gouging rods.
With this type of info,we can calculate just how much energy the carbon rods contribute to the calculated energy output.
Brad
The actual production of H2 +CO from water produces no heat at all! Being endothermic it sucks heat out of the arc. Every 12g of pure C requires 131kJ. Unfortunately it is not a spontaneous reaction at room temp and requires a high temperature to work. The heating and boiling of the water is pure waste from the arc power supply only. Accurate measurements are difficult, but if you insulate the container extremely well and use heaps of water to prevent boiling , you can calculate heat into the water from the specific heat of water ,the volume and the temp rise. Say this easy to calculate amount is is XkJ.
Then measure the mass of carbon used up,that has actually dissapeared, not just crumbled and floated around.Since each 12g was 131kJ from the electrical power, you can calculate that energy call this YkJ (note carbon rods have clay mixed in, so there are errors already). Add X+Y to get the heat out of the arc. Calculate or measure accurate electrical Joules in from transformer, call this Z and if you find that X+Y is much greater than Z then you might have something worth investigating LENR etc. I say much greater because there are bound to be big error because you are not in a lab environment with well calibrated instruments , there is also heat lost to the gas and the graphite purity is unknown. The arc is intermittant so in reality an integrating power measurement device is required. An alternative is to measure the volume of gas , its temperature and atmospheric pressure and relate that back to the amount of carbon actually burned. When I tried LENR with tungsten, I used DC as it was easy to measure the well filtered voltage on a large capacitor . The current was a bit crazy, but a simple filter from the current shunt with an RC constant into the seconds smoothed this well, but it wont work at all with AC. Kept temp well below 100 and stirred water all throughout to stop localized boiling but I was constantly measuring temp so stirring helped .
Can I ask you a question Tinman, Why did you give up on Meyer's technology and start pursuing this carbon rod thing you are doing right now?
Quote from: h20power on July 21, 2017, 05:43:35 PM
Can I ask you a question Tinman, Why did you give up on Meyer's technology and start pursuing this carbon rod thing you are doing right now?
There are a few reasons h20power.
The gas produced by carbon arc is much safer to store,and no flashbacks into bubblers-and the likes,as we are using an alternating current.
The energy value in the form of heat (heating water)is easy to calculate,and also put to good use.
And also a large amount of light is given off at the same time.
The bulk of what is left after the gas is burnt,is water and oxygen.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on July 21, 2017, 06:28:17 PM
There are a few reasons h20power.
The gas produced by carbon arc is much safer to store,and no flashbacks into bubblers-and the likes,as we are using an alternating current.
The energy value in the form of heat (heating water)is easy to calculate,and also put to good use.
And also a large amount of light is given off at the same time.
The bulk of what is left after the gas is burnt,is water and oxygen.
Brad
With Meyer's technology there is no safer way to store the hydrogen and oxygen than in the form of water itself. The technology doesn't produce any waste heat in the water bath and uses pulse DC from a DC power supply on the primary side. On the secondary side the voltage use on the water capacitor is AC but I guess you would already know that having read the pdf file I put out titled, "The Voltage Dissociation of Water." Meyer's quenching circuit technology makes for the safe transport of the mixed gases as it prevents any flashbacks from occurring. The gases are never stored but used at the point of consumption when needed. Using standard safety protocols making use of Meyer's technology is almost as easy as 123.
This technology doesn't have any products that are used up and really only barrows the water as the water itself is not consumed. When it comes to power generation this technology has no equal which is why I am confused by your giving up on it. Plus there is no need to do any peer review studies as the patents are already in the public domain. All that any of us that figure out how to get it working need do is start putting it to use in any area of business we choose to put it to use for.
Your going to be going up against Meyer's technology with this technology you are working on and you have to prove it safe to powers that be, find some way to prevent them from blocking you on making it, and figure out just what market you will be trying to get into. All I need to do is put Meyer's technology to use without all of that red tape. But a better question for you is how long do you expect to go from the prototype stage to being able to go into mass production with your technology? If you have no plan to go into mass production and only plan on Open Sourcing the technology then you are asking everyone to build what is known as a "One Off" which is the most costly way of making anything and you will have no assurances that those whom give your technology a try will not inadvertently kill themselves by not following instructions correctly.
On the other hand True Green Solutions will be putting Meyer's technology to work for the masses in a safe usable product that will be mass produced for affordability. I am not going to disclose where the company is heading right now but you will know once the products hit the marketplace. Sorry to see you toss in the towel like this but I know this technology is a tough nut to crack as it has taken me many years to figure out how to get it working correctly and I still don't have all the answers yet. My hope is when my company does go to market with this technology you and the others of these many forums will give this technology your full support. Can I count on you?
Well here is the first run of the PlazArc V2.
Two explosions,due to me not keeping an eye on the water level in the reactor chamber--oh well lol.
Problem been fixed,and some mods being made.
Next video up tonight,of a longer run--hopefully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ycGMglPdgU
Brad
"Well here is the first run of the PlazArc V2.
Two explosions,due to me not keeping an eye on the
water level in the reactor chamber--oh well lol."
Auuw tinman keep up the good work. so long as u got the concept correct its jus a matter of experiment and time
Well done Brad, wonderful setup! I like the neatness. But good luck measuring the input power with good accuracy. The current and voltage must be jumping all over the place.
A screen shot from the next video to come.
This thing make a lot of gas :)
Brad
Clip on vacuum HHO from "magnetvortex" lifting 25 Lbs. in one second.. using 2.2 watt/seconds of energy to lift this weight eight inches.. Cylinder is a hydro that is 2.5" x 8 .. Browns gas is NOT hydrogen gas..!!!
Here is my clip..https://youtu.be/Kacd_fWVAPI (https://youtu.be/Kacd_fWVAPI)[/font]
G.Wiseman has found it long ago... it's a heavy (gas) ??? as it sits in my Cyl. show hydrogen vented out and only BG is in Cyl making a vacuum.. GOT TO VENT THE "H"...
http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/watergas.php (http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/watergas.php)
Acca
(http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/watergas.php)