Dissociation of the Water Molecule
Ok, let’s look at this subject from a new perspective.
As folks might be aware, I’m not one to blindly attempt to replicate something in the vain hope that it might actually do what I want it to do.
No, I’m more for starting right at the beginning. To my mind this means starting with an understanding of the basic science behind some of the reactions and taking things from there. Clearly a better understanding of what is happening at atomic and molecular level will lead to educated speculation of how to exploit various favourable reactions.
From there the natural progression would be to devise, design and fabricate the necessary electronics and hardware to achieve a specific goal.
Loner recently brought to my attention a certain, Dr. Stiffler, whom until this point I was unaware of. Stiffler has some very interesting things going on at his website, but in keeping with the subject in hand, he also is seen dissociating water here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pJEz0YGlQ
Stiffler’s website: http://67.76.235.52/
Watching Stiffler apparently dissociate water with only one stainless steel electrode is quite intriguing, but more importantly would tend to fall outside the realms of standard everyday electrolysis.
Stiffler states that most of the gas being evolved is hydrogen, with very little oxygen, though how he would know this is not clear, and I presume this to be simply an assumption on his part. I personally would expect it to be only hydrogen â€" certainly not both gases. But I’m getting ahead of myself here, and this is not relevant to what I’m about to this post.
There is a saying, ‘There’s more than one way to skin a cat’, and I’ve been considering the various techniques by which water is apparently dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen, and looking for the common denominator.
We have:
1. Standard everyday straight dc electrolysis
2. Pulsed dc electrolysis
3. Naudin with his insulated electrode
4. Stiffler with a single electrode
5. Kanzius with no electrodes at all
There may well be other methods, not mentioned, but what do they all have in common? What is the common denominator and hence the key?
‘Electric Field’
All of the above methods expose water to an electric field of some magnitude or another.
Plain, everyday water self-ionises due to electric field fluctuations caused by molecular interactions, but quickly recombines if this reaction is not further influenced in any way.
With standard, everyday straight dc electrolysis, we draw great big ions through the water. This creates a lot of turbulence and far more intermolecular/ion collisions, which then results in greater electric field fluctuations and hence greater ionisation.
With pulsed dc, one would assume that the effect might be somewhat amplified by the voltage spikes produced within the water itself. These voltage spikes being created by very fast decay of the magnetic field generated by the ionic current flow each time the pulse switches off. The same way a car ignition coil generates a very high voltage in the secondary coil by magnetic inductance. After all, each ion current carrier will generate it’s own magnetic field, and surely produce a back emf of it’s own.
All the above methods are producing electric fields in one form or another, so we can assume that all will be adding enough energy to increase the ionisation of water above and beyond the normal level of self-ionisation.
So, if for a moment we take it as a ‘given’ that all the methods promote the ionisation of water due to electric field fluctuations, then it makes sense that some methods will be more efficient at doing this than others.
But of course, it’s not quite as simple as this… there is a problem…
Though we might be having great success in increasing the ionisation of the water molecule, that only gives us, H+ and OH-, which will quickly recombine if we influence it no further.
To be of any use to us at all, we need the H+ and OH- to pick up and drop charges in order to become useful atoms.
It’s clear to see how and where charges are collected and dropped when we have a +ve and â€"ve electrode submerged in the water or electrolytic solution, but the reaction is not quite so obvious when we have a single (or insulated electrode) or â€" in the case of Kanzius â€" no electrodes at all.
So, at this point, while I’m fairly happy to think that the ionisation of water is the result of electric fields â€" applied or otherwise â€" I am at the same time baffled by some of the the electrochemistry involved thereafter.
Over to you Loner...
please read this
http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf (88MB)
page 83
it is a scientific explanation of meyers wfc, it takes self ionization into account.
Hi Alan
I've already got that info, but in just re-reading from page 83, it doesn't make anymore sense to me now than it did two years ago.
If hydrogen and hydroxyl ions are picking up and dropping charges at the electrodes, this constitutes normal electrolysis current flow - as it states. However, then stating that the ions that did not react at the electrodes, will form into hydrogen and oxygen between pulses, and so will not cause current flow through the cct is odd to say the least - they would surely just recombine into the water molecule.
Ask yourself, how can one H+ ion join with another H+ ion to form H2? It can't happen, they are like charges and would repel each other for a start. They need two electrons from somewhere in order to become a stable, neutral hydrogen molecule.
It is not right - the paper does not state where these two electrons come from! If they come from the cathode, then current will flow around the cct... standard electrolysis.
Just another reason why I've always been so doubtful about the science.
@ Farrah Day, if you haven't mentioned it yet, you can use sound to also dissociate the molecule. Supposedly the frequency of 42.7122KHz
Also heat, water will decompose at 2730 degrees C
Mark
From what I understand, H+ doesn't try to combine with H+, instead it reacts with H2O forming H3O+, followed by the chain of reactions on page 88:
H3O+ + Metal -> Metal+ + H + H2O
H + H -> H2 + 436 KJ/MOL
OH- + Metal -> Metal- + OH
OH + OH -> H2O2
H2O2 -> H2O + O + 49KJ/MOL
O + O -> O + 491 KJ/MOL
don't know if this in compliance with reality, but clearly electrons are provided and absorbed by the electrodes.
Quote
However, then stating that the ions that did not react at the electrodes, will form into hydrogen and oxygen between pulses, and so will not cause current flow through the cct is odd to say the least - they would surely just recombine into the water molecule.
didn't notice that, gonna reread
ok, i see:
the period when the voltage field is turned off, ionized charges may recombine and h2 and o2 may be collected.
which ionized charges does he mean? h3o+ + oh- -> 2h2o ?
Loner
Your contribution would be Immense here!! [towards open source]
Chet
Hi Alan
The H3O+ hydronium ion is often ignored in high school electrolysis, and indeed by many other sources of electrolysis info, which brings up my point about electrolysis not itself being quite as simple and easy to understand as we are often led to believe.
As far as I am aware, the hydrogen proton (H+) only exists for a tiny fraction of a second before it reacts with the electron cloud around a molecule, in our case a water molecule, hence H3O+. Also unlike the hydroxyl ion, the hydrogen ion moves through the water, effectively hoping from one water molecule to the next (or rather displacing another hydrogen proton), in much the same way as electrons move in a conductor. This action is known as the Grotthuss Mechanism and does rely on the clumping, or binding nature or water molecules.
So, with a voltage applied across two electrodes in water, we don't necessarily get the original H+ ion reacting at the cathode, but simply 'a' displaced hydrogen proton. Because of this, I would expect the hydrogen reaction to be far more efficient than the hydroxyl reaction, given that the hydroxyl ion is much bigger and has to itself physically travel all the way through the liquid environment.
If we compare the H+ movement through water to that of electrons through a conductor, here is a good analogy:
Think of electrons travelling through a conductor as a hollow tube full of touching ball bearings. If the tube is full and you push an additional ball bearing into one end, then a ball bearing will instantly pop out of the other end. It is as good as instantaneous, though it would be sometime, should you continue re-inserting the expelled ball bearing, before the first additional ball bearing you pushed into the tube finally reappeared.
So, assuming that the hydrogen proton does move in a similar fashion to the electron - although not with the efficiency of the electron - you might certainly expect it to require many times less energy getting from A â€" B than the hydroxyl ion.
Incidentally, I read somewhere that an electron from a mains 240 volt supply travels at around 3 inches in an hour. I mention this because many people think of electrons as tiny particles whizzing around at near the speed of light â€" this does somewhat give you a rather different perspective of electricity doesn’t it!
The one good thing about all this, is that it’s not just us that are struggling to make sense of the electrochemistry. Scientists are still yet to fully understand all the properties of water, as it seems it does not always behave as predicted under certain conditions.
Speaking of not fully understanding the properties of water
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=Floating+Water+Bridge&aq=f
posted by a VERY bright young man zerotensor
Chet
PS if you know how this works, call the Physicists working on this [they could use your help]
QuoteIncidentally, I read somewhere that an electron from a mains 240 volt supply travels at around 3 inches in an hour. I mention this because many people think of electrons as tiny particles whizzing around at near the speed of light â€" this does somewhat give you a rather different perspective of electricity doesn’t it!
@ Farrah Day,
Yes most people don't realize this, If I recall correctly I think it is 1 Coulomb of electric charge moving through a wire at a rate of 1 amp moves like 4 inches a second. Pretty slow really even though electrons can move close to the speed of light.
Why is this person still allowed to post here ?
@ Dankie,
Please be specific which buffoon here do you refer too?
Dankie
A better question ,Why does that seem to be your agenda?
If Stefan really new your ''business'', not Open source motives for coming to this Forum
Things might be different
Chet
Quote from: ramset on March 17, 2009, 06:20:10 PM
Dankie
A better question ,Why does that seem to be your agenda?
If Stefan really new your ''business'', not Open source motives for coming to this Forum
Things might be different
Chet
demanding wannabe ??
cry
Dankie
Where did you get to with your VIC core? I believe that to be the core of the technology but the winding has got to be just right. Please share what you know. As Meyer already patenteted everything to do with that technology, I doubt if you will be able to get rich on the back of it. We can get there quicker, together.
At the moment I am trying to get someone to machine my Delrin bobbins.
Quote from: AhuraMazda on March 17, 2009, 07:55:20 PM
Dankie
Where did you get to with your VIC core? I believe that to be the core of the technology but the winding has got to be just right. Please share what you know. As Meyer already patenteted everything to do with that technology, I doubt if you will be able to get rich on the back of it. We can get there quicker, together.
At the moment I am trying to get someone to machine my Delrin bobbins.
Dude I am not the one you are after .
Ask 2curious4WFC , he is probably miles ahead of me .
Dankie
Its ""demanding wanna LEARN""[OOOHHHH AM I EVER LEARNING]
To quote Poynt99 ""question everything, double check the facts, THEN decide your path..""
Chet
Just to throw more spanners in your works...
In the thread started ages ago by IH (and others also) "there was a noticable increase in production "local" to the areas where magnets were attached to the cell". Since magnetic fields are created by electricity moving through a conduit and magnetic fields are not dampened a lot by phyical barriers (only the distance from the magnetic source dampens its strength {according to text books :P} ) magnetic fields could be contributing/causing your phenomenon (electrodeless electrolysis) this would also be apparent in all your other cells. The only thing is where are the spare electrons coming from??? It has been said that there are lots of "spare" electrons everywhere.
On the topis of magnetic fields explaining this, that would also explain... to hell with it just ask Dankie i'm an annoying lil sod that doesn't really help...
Quote from: Farrah Day on March 17, 2009, 10:22:06 AM
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pJEz0YGlQ
Watching Stiffler apparently dissociate water with only one stainless steel electrode is quite intriguing, but more importantly would tend to fall outside the realms of standard everyday electrolysis.
...
look and listen more carefully.
the bolt is connected to the sec circuit with a stainless wire too.
A small exert for from a web resource
Quote
What are electromagnetic fields?
Definitions and sources
Table of contents
Definitions and sources
Summary of health effects
Progress in research
Typical exposure levels at home and in the environment
Current standards
Precautionary approaches
What is EMF - German, Italian & Swedish
Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.
(Extract from Electromagnetic fields published by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 1999 (Local authorities, health and environment briefing pamphlet series; 32).
Interested in the part: - "An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing"
And I thought I could talk! Sorry Loner... could you repeat that?
Joking apart.... I decided to print it off to mull over later, incase looking at the monitor for that long would melt my eyeballs. ;)
That said, I do like a bloke that speaks his mind!
A lot probably all comes down to the fact that much of science is over-simplified in order to be visualised. Let's face it, some form of energy surrounds us and everything else within the universe all of the time... and it's just asking to be tapped into.
Just to emphasise this point. Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism involves 6 components to describe the electric and magnetic fields at each 4-dimensional point in space-time, something that we would find impossible to visualise, so there is clearly always more going on than we perceive... or maybe are capable of perceiving! It seems to me that there really are occasions that we only know of somethings existence through theoretical mathematics. But hey, if things were too easy we'd all be bored out of our minds!
Anyway, just got to go finish the housework... back later.
PS. Nop, you're right, I must have been distracted for the first few seconds of the video as I had not seen the attached ss bolt previously.
Here's a couple of very interesting Stiffler videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy8BJ6nq6Uk&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIhY_-l0tE&feature=channel_page
Incidentally for anyone that doesn't know - and I didn't - Stiffler was a forum moderator at one time. I found a Stiffler thread on this site of some 268 pages, over 2600 replies and which has been viewed over 140,000 times. However, it seems he was plagued by idiots and low-lives from start to finish, and I guess he eventually decided it wasn't worth the hassle to continue posting here - frankly it's not hard to imagine how he felt!
@Loner
Your a man with insight and I would like to hear more.
ok first a link
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/21011
Quote
Recently, it was discovered that the near infrared spectrum and refractive index of water can be affected by a strong magnetic field. Some researchers have suggested that the magnetic field somehow strengthens hydrogen bonds, but the exact mechanism behind these results remains a mystery.
now whith that quote in mind and what we know of how magnetic fields are formed with current flow (amps). now look at convention cells. Massive amps are used. Magnetic fields are created from the flow of electrons. The strength of the magnetic field is directly proportional to the amount of electron movement.
So if (please note that it is an IF not a set thing) magnetic fields strengthen the hydrogen bonds this would show why Meyers was onto something with HV. Now everyone that is looking into this tech knows that Meyers used HV at low amps and it was thought that it was simply the Pulsing sequence that was his magic formula. If it was the frequency then wouldn't the same frequency at high amps work too? but if you throw in that magnetic fields STRENGTHEN the bonds of hydrogen then you need to excite and attract the molecules without strengthening their bonds... Seeing as Voltage is simply potential and amps is the current (very simplified!!!) then there should be large gains from using higher voltage at the same watts/joules. as there is less magnetic field generated... SHOULD
Loner
Test results from your hands and mind, are like manna from heaven!!
Chet
Loner, I personally have no problem with quantum physics and I enjoy your insights.
I’m always prepared to step outside of the classical physics box. I guess it’s just that I like to keep one foot inside the box so I can be quickly pulled back should I get sucked into a trans-dimensional worm hole! ;)
Just to keep things within a visualised frame for the moment, we all know that drawing a heavy current through a standard electrolyser causes water to dissociate. But if - as I suspect is generally accepted to be the case - that this current simply serves to cause water to ionise due to electric field fluctuations created by simple ionic movement - collisions, near misses, etc (yes, brute force) - then this heavy current is surely not itself required.
So, assuming then that it is an active electric (or derivative) field that promotes the ionisation of water, and that by pulsing voltages across water we can promote some really good ionisation, what then is the next step…?
Well with the standard electrolyser, we have the electrodes within the cell to not only provide the voltage to create electric fields, but also to allow the ions of water to pick up or drop off electrons. So it would seem that the logical thing to attempt to do would be to provide a way of creating electric fields, and so ionisation, but then not also using the voltage source as the charge exchange mechanism.
OK, after giving this some thought, if we completely insulate two electrodes and pulse high dc voltages across the them, we will get no current flow and no gas, but still should have all these hydrogen (hydronium) and hydroxyl ions, there for the taking. That said, ionisation is an endothermic reaction, so we must assume, even without current flow through the solution, that we are using some energy to initiate the process â€" hence we should expect some power dissipation from the cct.
The big problem is how do we make use of these ions… how do we provide these ions with the opportunity to drop and collect charges, and so evolve as gas, without creating a current flow through the cct…?
Well, here’s an interesting thought â€" at least it is to me…
We provide the ions with a means of exchanging charges that does not interfere with the high dc voltage pulsing cct itself. How?
We provide a conductive path outside of the solution, with additional electrodes that sit within the solution â€" a simple ion exchange bridge, whereby the ions can exchange charges with each other.
It seems almost too simple… and I’ve not yet tried this, so might well be overlooking some obvious flaw here… but…
What if the main insulated electrodes are, say one inch apart, and we place numerous ss rods (or maybe an ss mesh), just in front of each insulated electrode… and then electrically connect these inner electrodes together via a conductive bridge outside of the solution. Presumably, being close to the electrodes, each rod (or mesh) would be sitting within a region of high ion density within solution, but one amongst the +ve ions and the other amongst the â€"ve ions.
Do you see where I’m going with this…?
The high voltage applied to the main insulated outer electrodes would be doing all the ionising, but using very little power, while the additional inner electrodes are electrically bridged to allow the ions to exchange charges, independently of the main pulsing cct - effectively at no energy cost.
Similar, if you like to the two sides of a floating plate in a standard electrolyser.
For it to work, and for the inner electrodes not to be influenced by the voltage potentials of the insulated outer electrodes, we could have the inner electrodes electrically disconnected during the dc voltage pulse, but then connect between pulses. The inner set of electrodes would be flipping on and off in time but 180 deg. out of sync. with the main outer electrode voltage pulses.
Could it work… would it work… or am I having a bad day?
Loner… have you ever tried anything like this?
Loner
long posts?? We read them on the edge of our seats ,wishing for a novel
Chet
Hi Loner
By all means feel free to follow your nose on this... I fully intend to do the same.
I suspect there may well be a common ground to be found somewhare between the quantum and the classical, but for now, at least, I'll be staying with what I'm comfortable with.
Right or wrong, I’m not too comfortable with H2Opower’s take on things, so I’ll be staying clear of that thread. I wonder about the legitimacy of continually ionising the oxygen atom again and again, etc, and why this in itself is not a great power drain. But as I don’t feel qualified to make educated comments on his ideas, I’ll reserve my judgement and let H2Opower’s progress speak for itself.
Since my last posts, I too have been getting a little excited by the prospects of undertaking some experiments to try to validate my own ideas. So, like you I might be taking a little time-out to devise and set up a few bench tests.
Good luck... and may the force be with you ;)!
Hope to find time to put some things together over the weekend in order to do some preliminary testing...
... catch you later Sherlock!
PS. Incidentally, for anyone interested, it appears that Stiffler is actually still a moderator and still active on the forum.
Anyone has more info on this catalyst?
developed by MIT chemist Daniel Nocera has mimicked the step in photosynthesis in which green plants split water.
keep up the good work
regards, atv
As the 'Cooking with Hydroxy' thread seems to be the only active thread at present, and as I don't want to hijack that or push it anymore off subject, I've decided to bring this thread back up.
I've now designed a few experiments to test a few of my theories. Theories which I touched on earlier in this thread and which to many tend to fly in the face of the accepted model of how standard electrolysis works.
To my mind, if you do not understand or cannot comprehend what is happening at molecular level, if you do not understand basic chemical reactions, how can you even consider building any kind of advanced WFC?
I see people building all sorts of fancy coils, playing with various pulsing circuits, talking about building... gas processors, when they have no idea what is actually happening at molecular level, or what electro-chemical processes might be occurring.
Unlike most around here, I'm not particularly interested in OU - I'm not sure it even exists and won't be wasting my time going on a wild goose chase.
Hartman has a big money prize for all you guys achieving OU - kinda strange why none of you have yet claimed it!
What I do feel needs more research and is open to a much greater understanding is the dissociation of the water molecule - it is far less understood than generally accepted. What particularly interests me is what is actually happening at molecular level, and how these reactions can be influenced.
Unlike Mr H2OPower who popped across to this forum recently saying he could explain the Meyer WFC, but expected everyone else to build a Meyer-type gas processor, and who supposedly had 'Proof of Concept' when is all he had was ideas, I prefer to deal with real science and start at the beginning.
What concerns me somewhat is just how quickly this thread drifted down the board once I stopped posting on it. It sort of worries me that so few people were prepared to comment. I can only assume it was because no one had a clue what I was talking about and hence an education issue, in which case inteligent productive discussion might become difficult.
To be honest I'm not sure it will even be worth my effort posting here as the forum is continually littered with utter nonsense and abusive posts from the obviously mentally challenged, with no moderator intervention (Oh, in saying that, he did threaten to ban me earlier in the year for expressing my opinion). It also occurs to me that discussion is only really active when the village idiots are on a day out.
But, we'll see what happens.
Actually, this approach (understanding at a molecular level) to HHO makes the most sense IMHO.
Until we have a better understanding of why electrolysis happens, it seems futile to try building a better device to achieve it.
"State of the art" at the moment revolves around amperage and that more is better, but it just strikes me the same as using an electric hand drill to saw a board in 1/2.
It can be done, but is woefully inefficient, and when that fact is announced the answer seems to come back that the drill bit needs to be bigger.
The best descriptions (or theory) as to how/why electrolysis happens that I've seen and been able to BASICALLY understand are those from Andrija PUHARICH (whose research some seem to think Stan Meyers may have used as a spring board for his devices).
These (Puharich/Meyer) devices haven't seemed to have great luck with replication but have the approach that makes the most sense.
NOW I'll go back and read the entire thread to get a gist of your theories. ;)
Farrah Day,
What is missing from our understanding of electrolysis (of h2o)?
Also, regarding the experiments.. I would be totally amazed if someone could replicate the Kanzius RF water fracturing experiment (with a polarized 13.8 Mhz frequency, or whatever he did) ... I have serious doubts about this technique, and I'm not sure about Dr. Stiffler or JL naudin method either.
\
Newbie, I find the Kanzius saltwater burning discovery of real intrigue. If true, the science is fascinating and could hold the key to a few of the processes that to date have eluded proper scientific explanation.
All the research I have done into the Kanzius discovery leads me to think it is genuine and not a hoax... and I don't consider myself very gulible! I mean, the man is dead now and was researching a treatment for cancer... he had nothing to gain from diverting attention away from his cancer treatment research onto something as bizarre as burning saltwater. Many professionals might well have said nothing, keeping it to themselves, concerned that such publicity might affecting their credibility as a serious engineer/inventor. I personally think he had too much at stake with his cancer research to create such an elaborate hoax and hence chance being discredited by his peers. At least that's me take on it.
Stifler seems genuine enough and has some interesting experiments behind him, though these are more in the area of radiant energy than electrolysis.
Naudin bothers me a little. He has a big website and has experimented with a lot of things much of which I find very interesting and more recently he has stated trying to replicate Meyers WFC. According to website his set up is achieving some success in this, but he wont reply to emails. What bothers me about Naudin is that he seems to have no problem with the Meyer Technical brief, when it is clearly a load of gobbledegook full of invented terms and pseudoscience which should be obvious to anyone well versed in science and electronics. I'm keeping an open mind about Naudin.
QuoteWhat is missing from our understanding of electrolysis (of h2o)?
There are quite a few things that are never touched upon relating to 'simple' electrolysis when it comes to the dissociation of the water molecule. Things that answers to are hard to come by - mind you I've always been one to ask the awkward questions.
Ok, here is something to think about.
If we have, for convenience, let's say distilled water to which we add sodium sulphate as an electrolyte, we then have clusters of H2O molecules intermingled with sodium ions (Na+) and Sulphate ions (SO4-).
We place in the solution two inert electrodes and apply a voltage to those electrodes. Ion current flows and we get hydrogen evolving from the cathode and oxygen evolving from the anode. The sodium and sulphate ions take no part in the final reaction, so remain in the solution. So, why do not all the +ve sodium ions concregate on the surface of the cathode and halt the process? Why do not all the -ve sulphate ions congregate on the anode and halt the process?
The devil is often in the detail, and it's little details like this that niggle away at me. No one has ever been able to provide me with an answer to this seemingly simple question - and I've others too!
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 09, 2009, 09:00:27 PM
Newbie, I find the Kanzius saltwater burning discovery of real intrigue. If true, the science is fascinating and could hold the key to a few of the processes that to date have eluded proper scientific explanation.
I just have a hard time believing any claims like this until independent replications are done. Have there been any done yet? How hard could it be to beam a tube of water with 13.8 mhz photons? I don't have the equipment to try this, otherwise I would try it... My first thought on this was ... If you could just beam salt water with HF radio waves and split it, then why aren't all the HF amateur radio waves disassociating the ocean? And 13.8 mhz is way under the energy required to ionize water with photons (really about 1e15 Hz) .. Could some sort of cavitation be occuring in the tube? But this is all pointless speculation, imo, until someone experimentally confirms this method really works...
I've contacted Rustum Roy (Kanzius associate) .. He was secretive, and referred me to a paper he published on the experiment (which had absolutely no useful information, imo) .... And his site http://www.rustumroy.com/ (crackpotish, I think)
Quote
All the research I have done into the Kanzius discovery leads me to think it is genuine and not a hoax... and I don't consider myself very gulible! I mean, the man is dead now and was researching a treatment for cancer... he had nothing to gain from diverting attention away from his cancer treatment research onto something as bizarre as burning saltwater. Many professionals might well have said nothing, keeping it to themselves, concerned that such publicity might affecting their credibility as a serious engineer/inventor. I personally think he had too much at stake with his cancer research to create such an elaborate hoax and hence chance being discredited by his peers. At least that's me take on it.
Stifler seems genuine enough and has some interesting experiments behind him, though these are more in the area of radiant energy than electrolysis.
Ack.. "seems genuine" or "why would they fake it?" just isn't good enough for me.. I want to see replications or real science... The best frauds/fakers in the world all seemed genuine.
I'll have to get back to you on the rest of your post..
Loner, I think you're are mostly right.. The actual science isn't nearly as important as having a working replication, right in front of you.. But as Farrah Day is saying.. understanding the conditions required to disassociate H2O would probably be the "key" to developing a new technology (if a new technology exists)... But why try to reinvent the wheel? Why not try to replicate the John Kanzius salt water burning experiment? It seems pretty basic, not nearly as complex as the B. Boyce or S. Meyer cells .. I'm not sure how much information is out there on the experiment.. But there is probably enough to attempt a replication.
there is a lot missing from your understanding of electrolysis.
Loner, short and sweet as per usual ;) nice to have you back.
Agreed, you don't have to understand how something is happening at molecular level to have a working unit. My point was merely that if you do have an idea of what is actually occuring at molecular level then you should be able to tailor a design to more efficiently achieve the desired results. What I do rebel against is when people invent their own explanation for things that they have absolutely no real knowledge of - or that has no foundation in real science - and then claim it as science fact.
Newbie
Don't get me wrong about the Kanzius phenomenon, I'm not 100% convinced by it, but I've got to say that I'm more inclined to believe than not! Agreed there is nothing in the way of independent proof that I know of, but after considering all the available info I'm leaning toward it more probably being fact than fiction. I'm fully aware that my opinion is not based on any qualifying science... and so has yet to be substantiated, but it ultimately comes down to, dare I say it, my 'gut feeling'!
QuoteAnd 13.8 mhz is way under the energy required to ionize water with photons (really about 1e15 Hz)
Don't be too sure about this, remember that water self-ionises without any external influences. Furthermore, it will be the influence of the RF on the Na+ and Cl- inducing movement that causes the water to ionise, not directly the EM radiation.
I'm currently constructing something that may provide me with a little more info on this phenomenon.
d3 said:
Quotethere is a lot missing from your understanding of electrolysis.
No kidding... if you have anything useful to proffer, then please, by all means enlighten me!
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 09, 2009, 09:00:27 PM
Ok, here is something to think about.
If we have, for convenience, let's say distilled water to which we add sodium sulphate as an electrolyte, we then have clusters of H2O molecules intermingled with sodium ions (Na+) and Sulphate ions (SO4-).
We place in the solution two inert electrodes and apply a voltage to those electrodes. Ion current flows and we get hydrogen evolving from the cathode and oxygen evolving from the anode. The sodium and sulphate ions take no part in the final reaction, so remain in the solution. So, why do not all the +ve sodium ions concregate on the surface of the cathode and halt the process? Why do not all the -ve sulphate ions congregate on the anode and halt the process?
The devil is often in the detail, and it's little details like this that niggle away at me. No one has ever been able to provide me with an answer to this seemingly simple question - and I've others too!
Here is how I imagine it.. an electrolyte solution can be thought of as a "hydrogen bond network" here is a good image: http://gold.cchem.berkeley.edu/Pictures_and_Images/H2O.jpg ..You can probably imagine how Na+ and SO- fit into the picture.
The H3O+ and OH- ions are said to "flicker" back and forth between ions and H2O... Near the anode and the cathode, the "ion" density will be higher .. i.e. They flicker back and forth more often, or stay "on" longer than the in the middle of the cell... But since they "flicker" ..... electrons will always be able to pass through... The electrons pass through "ion chains" just similar to how hydrogen atoms "propagate" through an electrolyte using the Grotthus mechanism.. Note: ions do not "Flow" through the electrolyte normally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotthuss_mechanism
Hi Newbie
See how quickly simple electrolysis becomes 'not quite so simple' and somewhat open to interpretation.
QuoteNear the anode and the cathode, the "ion" density will be higher .. i.e. They flicker back and forth more often, or stay "on" longer than the in the middle of the cell... But since they "flicker" ..... electrons will always be able to pass through... The electrons pass through "ion chains" just similar to how hydrogen atoms "propagate" through an electrolyte using the Grotthus mechanism.. Note: ions do not "Flow" through the electrolyte normally.
I'm not sure why the ion density would be higher near the electrodes than in the middle of the cell as the current thorough the cell will be uniform throughout. I've heard said before that ionisation only takes place at or near the electrodes, but, right or wrong, I do not agree with this. The point is that only at the electrodes can charges be exchanged to evolve the gases - water ionising too far from the electrodes will simply recombine before it gets to the electrodes, and hence we have an inherent inefficiency of standard electrolysis.
So I personally think that the ion density will remain constant throughout the liquid, but we only see results of ionisation near or at the electrodes because that's where the crucial reaction takes place. Neither do I personally think the ions of water remain as ions for any longer near the electrodes than those further from the electrodes... why would they? Exactly the same gradient of potential exhibits itself on the ions at any given place in the solution between the electrodes.
As ions are the current carriers in liquids, I'm not sure what you mean by' "The electrons pass through 'ion chains' just similar to how hydrogen atoms (ions) propagate through a liquid'.
To the best of my knowledge electrons are not the current carriers in liquids and are only lost from anions when they reach a source of +ve 'holes'.
The hydrogen ion uses the Grotthus Mechanism because a single proton is so unstable that it cannot exist on it's own for long so will combine with the nearest available molecule, but the much larger hydroxyl ion travels through the liquid more 'normally'.
So, given that after a time you would expect the anode to be polarised by SO4- ions, how do the OH- ions so easily get through this barrier of like charges to the electrode?
Furthermore, why is it that there never comes a point at which current flow ceases because all the sodium ions are pulled to the cathode and all of the sulphate ions are pulled to the anode?
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 10, 2009, 05:47:21 AM
Don't be too sure about this, remember that water self-ionises without any external influences. Furthermore, it will be the influence of the RF on the Na+ and Cl- inducing movement that causes the water to ionise, not directly the EM radiation.
True..
Self-ionization is an interesting concept..
Electric field fluctuations (electrons bouncing around... via zero-point energy?) in water will cause two H2O molecules to "bounce" into each other with enough energy to self-ionize and become H3O+ and OH- ... Then back to H2O ("flicker") Which requires .828 eV per interaction at 25C... This happens once every 10 hours per water molecule (pair).
How much energy is "exchanged" though this mechanism? Here's my best guess..
There are 1000 grams in one liter of water, and 18.01528 grams/mole in liquid water.
(1000 grams) / (18.01528 g/mol) = 55.5 mol
So, one liter has 55.5 moles, or 3.34e25 water molecules. (55.5 mol) * (avogadro's number)
Each (pair) of H2O molecules (2H2O) is said to self-ionize once every (10 hours) or once every 36,000 seconds...
Or you can say (1 / 36,000) water molecules are 'self-ionizing' every second...
So out of 3.34e25 water molecules (one liter) ... There are (1 / 36000) * 3.34e25 = 9.27e20 self ionizations ocuring every second
Which should required (.828 eV) * (9.27e20) = 123 Joules / Second or 123 Watt-Hours per liter.. Is this right? this seems a lot higher than I imagined.. I probably made a mistake or two.
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 10, 2009, 05:19:21 PM
Hi Newbie
See how quickly simple electrolysis becomes 'not quite so simple' and somewhat open to interpretation.
I'm not sure why the ion density would be higher near the electrodes than in the middle of the cell as the current thorough the cell will be uniform throughout. I've heard said before that ionisation only takes place at or near the electrodes, but, right or wrong, I do not agree with this. The point is that only at the electrodes can charges be exchanged to evolve the gases - water ionising too far from the electrodes will simply recombine before it gets to the electrodes, and hence we have an inherent inefficiency of standard electrolysis.
So I personally think that the ion density will remain constant throughout the liquid, but we only see results of ionisation near or at the electrodes because that's where the crucial reaction takes place. Neither do I personally think the ions of water remain as ions for any longer near the electrodes than those further from the electrodes... why would they? Exactly the same gradient of potential exhibits itself on the ions at any given place in the solution between the electrodes.
Here is an example for you. When you perform electrolysis in a cell for a while... Then turn off the cell.. You'll have a voltage potential difference between electrodes ... Where does this voltage come from? :) The voltage isn't there because the ions are equally distributed throughout the cell.
Quote
As ions are the current carriers in liquids, I'm not sure what you mean by' "The electrons pass through 'ion chains' just similar to how hydrogen atoms (ions) propagate through a liquid'.
Well, would electrons would be able to pass through a (hypethetical) solution of pure OH- , or even pure H3O+ ? I don't believe so... I'll try to find a good reference.
Hi Newbie
QuoteHere is an example for you. When you perform electrolysis in a cell for a while... Then turn off the cell.. You'll have a voltage potential difference between electrodes ... Where does this voltage come from? The voltage isn't there because the ions are equally distributed throughout the cell.
I believe I know the answer to this, but before I give it, when I was refering to the ion density remaining constant throughout the solution between the electrodes I was refering to the ions of water, not the sodium or sulphate ions.
In fact I totally agree and would expect there to be a higher concentration of sodium and sulphate ions at the electrodes - hence my point about polarisation of the electrodes.
To your point about residual voltage, I have done quite a few experiments along these lines, and found that in some cases I still had a residual voltage across the electrodes as much as an hour after I'd disconnected the power source. In fact I once monitored this specifically and recorded the results. One thing to note is that, irrelevant of what voltage I was using across the cell in the first place, the residual voltage always quickly dropped to that below the voltage level required for electrolysis - which makes sense. So the residual voltage was never enough in itself to continue performing electrolysis. What I did find was that the longer I had been operating the cell before I disconnected it from the power source, the longer the residual voltage remained.
Now the interesting part. I had expected that I could discharge the electrodes and so get rid of the residual voltage by simply shorting out the terminals - I couldn't. In fact nothing I could do would deplete this residual voltage. I even took the cell out of the solution, but while wet, the residual voltage remained!
This led me to the logical conclusion that it is the sodium and sulphate ions at and on the electrodes that are providing this residual voltage, and as the sodium and sulphate ions do not exchange electrons at the electrodes, I could not discharge this potential difference. Only after time (quite a long time) would the sodium and sulphate ions become once again totally dispersed throughout the water.
Newbie, this is exactly the kind of considered and thoughtful discussion I thrive on. I find that this kind of discussion can often throw up things that may have been overlooked in the past or ill-considered in the first place and hence open the mind to other ideas and theories - Keep it up.
PS. All that I say in my posts, apart from that which is known to be beyond any doubt, scientific fact, is only my opinion or my personal interpretation and should not be considered anything else.
Hi all,
@ Farrah
I noticed that same behavior (but not in such an in depth manner) when I was experimenting with HHO.
I discovered it when I had been producing HHO for a while and then decided to see if I could switch electrical delivery.
Every time I did, I would have no production. It would take a large amperage jolt to change this and production still wouldn't be what it was before switching polarities.
I asked about this effect and was told that a cell acts like a very inefficient capacitor, and from both our experiences this would seem true.
I then wrapped my cell with 12 AWG solid core house current wire (about 40-45 turns) and used it as electrical delivery to one electrode, and made a 3 turn coil loose outer coil from 3/16" copper tubing and used it for delivery to other electrode formed in much the same way as a Tesla coil, but just delivering positive and negative current.
The cell is a clear plastic 2 qt. food storage container with clamp seal lid from walmart with a 9 plate -N+N-N+N- electrical wall switch plate electrode set gapped about 1-2mm.
You can see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnQTsLIucQ&feature=channel_page
(It has the least bad scripting and useless bloat.)
Every time (except once) using this set up I could exchange the electrode polarities and have instant production.
At this point I became excited as I saw it as an answer to AC electrolysis, but did not get to continue with testing it due to time constraints (although I'm going to be getting into experimentation again with this "real soon" ;) ).
The thing that stuck with me from this is the question of why if you coil wrapped a capacitor it would stop holding charge, as this is what seemed to happen from my meager understanding.
Could it be (and this is pure speculation) that the magnetic field of the current traveling in the coiled electrical delivery wire kept the cell plates from being able to accumulate electrons?
I don't have an answer for that, but it's relatively simple to try if you have the spare wire.
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 11, 2009, 04:52:02 AM
Hi Newbie
I believe I know the answer to this, but before I give it, when I was refering to the ion density remaining constant throughout the solution between the electrodes I was refering to the ions of water, not the sodium or sulphate ions.
In fact I totally agree and would expect there to be a higher concentration of sodium and sulphate ions at the electrodes - hence my point about polarisation of the electrodes.
To your point about residual voltage, I have done quite a few experiments along these lines, and found that in some cases I still had a residual voltage across the electrodes as much as an hour after I'd disconnected the power source. In fact I once monitored this specifically and recorded the results. One thing to note is that, irrelevant of what voltage I was using across the cell in the first place, the residual voltage always quickly dropped to that below the voltage level required for electrolysis - which makes sense. So the residual voltage was never enough in itself to continue performing electrolysis. What I did find was that the longer I had been operating the cell before I disconnected it from the power source, the longer the residual voltage remained.
Now the interesting part. I had expected that I could discharge the electrodes and so get rid of the residual voltage by simply shorting out the terminals - I couldn't. In fact nothing I could do would deplete this residual voltage. I even took the cell out of the solution, but while wet, the residual voltage remained!
This led me to the logical conclusion that it is the sodium and sulphate ions at and on the electrodes that are providing this residual voltage, and as the sodium and sulphate ions do not exchange electrons at the electrodes, I could not discharge this potential difference. Only after time (quite a long time) would the sodium and sulphate ions become once again totally dispersed throughout the water.
Newbie, this is exactly the kind of considered and thoughtful discussion I thrive on. I find that this kind of discussion can often throw up things that may have been overlooked in the past or ill-considered in the first place and hence open the mind to other ideas and theories - Keep it up.
PS. All that I say in my posts, apart from that which is known to be beyond any doubt, scientific fact, is only my opinion or my personal interpretation and should not be considered anything else.
Same here.. But as interesting as standard H2O electrolysis (and researching the gray areas) can be , I feel people still experimenting with Meyer/Boyce/HHO, are just beating a dead horse! I've come to the conclusion, that LENR aka "Cold Fusion" is the way to go if you truly want to search for a potentially legitimate (and working), "free", clean, energy source... There have been some recent developments wrt LENR (low energy nuclear reactions) at the Navy (SPAWAR) but very little interest on this site. I wonder why people are trying to replicate these experiments? Seems much more viable that gravity wheels, magnet motors, magic circuits, etc.
But for basic electrolysis experiments and maybe some "gray areas" in science.. Check out this guy's site: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Also, If the Kanzius experiment really works, this would be way more interesting than the Boyce/Meyer concepts (fantasies).
Quote from: newbie123 on May 11, 2009, 04:16:16 PM
I feel people still experimenting with Meyer/Boyce/HHO, are just beating a dead horse! I've come to the conclusion, that LENR aka "Cold Fusion" is the way to go if you truly want to search for a potentially legitimate (and working), "free", clean, energy source...
The people researching these "ideas" believe that this style/form/process holds the most potential... claiming one thing is more legitimate than the other is just asking for the occult bashing that these ideas have...
Quote from: newbie123 on May 11, 2009, 04:16:16 PM
Also, If the Kanzius experiment really works, this would be way more interesting than the Boyce/Meyer concepts (fantasies).
I think that a lot of things would be smarter for our society to do but it ain't going to happen on its own... IF it really works... IF all the other ideas "really" (quotations because there are no replications) worked then they would be more interesting... Our greatest problem is funnily enough our largest driving force... Everything is controlled by the dollar... But those ideas are for another forum...
Quote from: CrazyEwok on May 11, 2009, 08:48:21 PM
The people researching these "ideas" believe that this style/form/process holds the most potential...
Another weird possibility is that nobody here would be interested in a Kanzius replication... If someone actually replicated Kanzius on this site, the invention (and science, even if brand new) might not be 'fantastic' enough to be appreciated... And LENR maybe as well.
Although very cool, The Kanzius method is not efficient in any way or form. Not to mention, it only worked with salt in the water. Of course, I'm assuming we are discussing to better understand free energy and the likes.
Maybe it's possible that making the gas from normal efficient electrolysis isn't the key, but what we do with the gases, such as ionization. Or maybe we can deform the nucleus of the Oxygen atoms and put them into a higher spin and push the electrons into higher orbits? How much more energy do you think you will get when that nucleus snaps back to its natural equilibrium?
http://focus.aps.org/story/v9/st21
Quote from: HeairBear on May 12, 2009, 01:31:53 AM
Although very cool, The Kanzius method is not efficient in any way or form.
Interesting.. Where did you learn about the efficiency of the Kanzius experiment? I haven't been able to any information on the efficiency, let alone the experiment details. Do you have a link?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2424.0
The claimed efficiency is 76 percent. But, I'm still not even convinced it actually worked. And if it does work, it would be interesting because it is something totally new, science-wise.. Have you found any independent replications?
Quote from Curious Texan... "The Kanzius discovery had been replicated at Penn State University by Professor Emeritus Rustum Roy. According to Roy, the energy released is the result of the specific radio frequency of the Kanzius machine weakening the bonds between sodium and chloride, and hydrogen and oxygen..."
The quote from the curious Texan is odd to say the least, given that the sodium and chlorine are independent ions in water and so not bonded anyway.
Does not tell us anything of any value does he. I'd love to know how he explains how we get from ions to evolved gas - which of course is where the whole mystery of this process lies!
I'd guess that the curious Texan is non-the wiser and still just a curious as we are.
Don't know if you've seen this patent, but this is what I'm currently experimenting with.
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4599158
My coil is wound on a 4" soil pipe cap end. I'm using 0.75mm enamelled copper wire. Not sure how long a length I wound, but it has a dc resitance of 7 ohms. I still as yet need to cut up some small ss plates.
I figure that 0.75mm should be good for a couple amps continuous and at least 5 amps peak or pulses.
Just to check out the magnetic field my coil assembly could produce, I placed a white ceramic tile on top of it and sprinkled tiny bits of steel wool.
I switched on the PSU and even with just a couple of volts, the bits of steel wool immediately and quite visibly got into formation. Flicking the voltage up and down saw the steel wool dancing about quite impressively. I could clearly follow the lines of magnetism as some larger strands of the steel wool stood on end, effectively giving me a 3D image.
The magnetic field, even at only a few amps seems quite strong, and hopefully will be potent enough for forthcoming tests.
Interestingly a 50mm x 8mm neodynium rod magnet standing on it's end 6" from the coil assembly was easily knocked over by the resulting magnetic field as I flicked the power up and down.
If you read through the patent, you will find that the crucial reaction - that is going from ionisation to evolved gas - is missing... as always seems to be the case. It's seems to me that it's all about find this one missing link.
Quote from: HeairBear on May 12, 2009, 09:08:46 AM
Quote from Curious Texan... "The Kanzius discovery had been replicated at Penn State University by Professor Emeritus Rustum Roy. According to Roy, the energy released is the result of the specific radio frequency of the Kanzius machine weakening the bonds between sodium and chloride, and hydrogen and oxygen..."
Rustum Roy is not a very reliable source, imo. The "scientific" article he wrote (in a tiny journal .. that he publishes) offers no useful information at all... And cites local news channels, which is pretty funny.. Anway, I sent him an email a month ago and got nothing out of him except a link to his crappy article... Someone else should try. Here is his email: rroy at psu.edu ..
I guess this is a Kanzius replication attempt (?) .. Doesn't really look like it though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEL97jBM-eQ&feature=related
Where is the basis for doubting the reality of the Kanzius phenomena? There are no valid ones: Other than "personal opinions" that it "can't be". Meanwhile there is documented proof that it happened.
Besmirching a man like Dr. Kanzius after his death (.... Saying this is false after reading his Paper on the subject is the same as calling him a "Liar")... Is utterly disgusting.
He was a man who dedicated the last years of his life to Mankind, who made significant discoveries in both anti-cancer medicine and alternative energy... And his memory does not deserve this treatment.
He proved that 13.56 MHz RF can disassociate seawater... Whether some here like it or not.
And as for it being efficient, a flame that burns at 4,000 Deg F will heat a water vessel with heat exchanger rather nicely..... So it won't take much input power efficiency at all to beat "Faraday efficiency"; verses a standard electrical resistive element. The system they devised for this at the Erie, PA lab was not designed to be efficient: It was an open-air demonstrator.
Why this technique has not been pursued farther yet, is another story... One that deserves looking into closely.
Closing this system up with a well shielded box containing a non-conductive chamber or pipe carrying the seawater between two close-coupled, resonant "antenna / electrodes" on either side could be a much more energy efficient solution. There are RF systems out there now in industry for many applications; the main difference here would be the frequency... Which, BTW, "13.56 MHz" is the same F range now assigned to packaging "RFID" tags and transeivers... A researcher could possibly get an RFID "station" from a warehousing supply company (they start at about $300), and use that as the oscillator front-end, with an amplifying output stage added.
By all accounts, Dr. Kanzius did not even wish to pursue this technology; it was secondary to his goal of curing cancer.
Quote from: jibbguy on May 12, 2009, 05:36:47 PM
Where is the basis for doubting the reality of the Kanzius phenomena? There are no valid ones: Other than "personal opinions" that it "can't be". Meanwhile there is documented proof that it happened.
Here is the basis..
Nobody has replicated the experiment /phenomena (whether you like it or not.. Replications are the proof to the rest of the world) .. I haven't found anything valid as of now... Do you know of any?
Quote
Besmirching a man like Dr. Kanzius after his death (.... Saying this is false after reading his Paper on the subject is the same as calling him a "Liar")... Is utterly disgusting.
I shouldn't doubt someone's claims because they're dead?
Quote
He was a man who dedicated the last years of his life to Mankind, who made significant discoveries in both anti-cancer medicine and alternative energy... And his memory does not deserve this treatment.
He proved that 14.56 MHz RF can disassociate seawater... Whether some here like it or not.
Apparently proof to you is watching something on Youtube, or the media trying to hype something up, or in a little article with 0 useful information? Or even, "He seems like a good guy", so it must be true?
Proof is in the replications! Period!
Heck, I'm not even saying he didn't do it.. I'm open minded about it at this point... But I am saying more is required to PROVE to the world, that it is a real phenomena, and I have doubts... To totally believe it at this point is just naive.
Quote
And as for it being efficient, a flame that burns at 4,000 Deg F will heat a water vessel with heat exchanger rather nicely..... So it won't take much input power efficiency at all to beat "Faraday efficiency"; verses a standard electrical resistive element. The system they devised for this at the Erie, PA lab was not designed to be efficient: It was an open-air demonstrator.
Why even speculate about efficiency at this point? And who cares about efficiency? If you can replicate this experiment, you will have a previously unknown way to disassociate water... (which would be fascinating) .. And even help support Kanzius's experiment/claim.. You would probably even make national news! The media would love this story (again).
Jibbguy
Noboby is knocking the guy, and I think we've all read and seen the reports. It's simply a healthy dose of skeptism - which around here is essential. Everyone will have their own opinion on this until further details are published. And Kanzius now being dead is irrelevant.
As for efficiency, you are only speculating as you - like I - have no way of knowing all the crucial details. Besides, it's not the efficiency that's important here, it's whether or not we have a new chapter in science unfolding.
The fact is that it's the lack of crucial details in this kind of headline that creates all the skeptiscm in the first place, so you can't decry folk from being cautious. I think you're being a little niave here.
I think also you will find that he was using 13.56 meg
Quote from: newbie123 on May 12, 2009, 02:05:58 AM
Interesting.. Where did you learn about the efficiency of the Kanzius experiment? I haven't been able to any information on the efficiency, let alone the experiment details. Do you have a link?
Lol, it looks like YOU cared about it (...until now apparently ;) )
As for a replication: How do you know it hasn't been replicated, and several times? Where is YOUR proof to debunk the local Cleveland TV news report (and another in Florida), and the 60 Minutes program segment? Where is YOUR scientific Paper that refutes the one sited?
You have n-o-t-h-i-n-g to back your comments on except your personal opinion.
You can't get away with just knee-jerk denying without expecting to have someone calling you on it. Bring some proof yourself... Or stop dis'ing a person who gave his all for us.
Another Paper disclaiming the first would do just fine.
Funny... I would think that if it was so damn fake, that they would have jumped on doing that right away ;)
Quote from: jibbguy on May 12, 2009, 06:47:38 PM
Lol, it looks like YOU cared about it (...until now apparently ;) )
Lol, you got me there... Actually, I was hoping some experiment details could be found with actual efficiency measurements (if any were to be found).
Quote
As for a replication: How do you know it hasn't been replicated, and several times? Where is YOUR proof to debunk the local Cleveland TV news report (and another in Florida), and the 60 Minutes program segment? Where is YOUR scientific Paper that refutes the one sited?
The problem here is that you don't understand ... That there is NOTHING TO DEBUNK in those in those TV news reports... Think about it. How can I replicate his experiment from what you saw on TV? How can it actually be proven or disproven with that information? It can't. TV is not proof.. Replications are.
@Farrah: Yes thanks it is "13.56" not 14.56 (..and i had posted that just 2 weeks ago here too in another thread lol). And this is still the same as the RFID freq. I went back and changed it now, so much appreciated.
@Newbie: No one is replicating this in the Open Source community as far as i know, that is true. But that doesn't refute the paper, or the work that was done by the company in Erie... It just means that no has replicated it yet. We don't know what the peeps in Erie are doing with it... But i have my suspicions what happened to this technology: It likely got bought-out and shelved, like some others i plan to write about in my next series of articles on corporate shelving ;)
And in the news reports, they didn't get into details, but they stated what was happening clearly. This means they vetted the information before putting it on the air, probably via an independent scientist or academic that they use for these cases.
And i bet that if it had really been "Debunkable", our buddy Eric at "Philadelphia Skeptics" would have done so by now lol ;)
_______________
Maybe the idea of using an RFID transceiver as the oscillator front-end will help with getting some O-S replications of the Kanzius system in the future, who knows. I used to work with these RFID devices; they are easy to use, much the same as a wifi router with internal antenna in design. They have multiple "channels" and other F-tuning settings that can be manually tweaked using an HTTP GUI ; and i'm willing to bet that some peeps here know how to squeeze the best possible Watts efficiency out of an inductive step-up system for the output section ;)
And the reason that efficiency is important, should be evident: Every time we prove that the text books are lying about the energy efficiency of disassociating water... We drive another nail into Big Oil's coffin ;)
Quote from: jibbguy on May 12, 2009, 07:31:09 PM
@Newbie: No one is replicating this in the Open Source community as far as i know, that is true. But that doesn't refute the paper, or the work that was done by the company in Erie...
Well.. That paper is just about as pointless, and credible, as the TV clips.. Other than giving out the polarized RF frequency.
Quote
And the reason that efficiency is important, should be evident: Every time we prove that the text books are lying about the energy efficiency of disassociating water... We drive another nail into Big Oil's coffin ;)
Over Faraday gas measurements are just calculation errors (Every one I've seen, at least) .. I've actually looked into this... And the series cells, i.e. Bob Boyce 101, will appear to get more gas out per current, when they're really not (it's sort of an illusion)... But I don't want to get into the details in this thread.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 12, 2009, 08:00:46 PM
Over Faraday gas measurements are just calculation errors (Every one I've seen, at least) .. I've actually looked into this... And the series cells, i.e. Bob Boyce 101, will appear to get more gas out per current, when they're really not (it's sort of an illusion)... But I don't want to get into the details in this thread.
will you get into the details in a new thread? i can start one for you if you don't know how. i would love to hear these details, i would like to see your math on the calculation errors too. ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 12, 2009, 08:12:54 PM
will you get into the details in a new thread? i can start one for you if you don't know how. i would love to hear these details, i would like to see your math on the calculation errors too. ;)
Sounds good. Give me some over Faraday examples, measured on series cells.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 12, 2009, 08:18:22 PM
Sounds good. Give me some over Faraday examples, measured on series cells.
no no, pay attention now...
YOU SAID "Over Faraday gas measurements are just calculation errors (Every one I've seen, at least) .. "
you've seen them... you infer you did the math to come to the conclusion they are errors... this was ONE POST AGO, DON'T PLAY STUPID LIKE I AM SUPPOSED TO SUPPLY YOU WITH THEM.
YOU THEN SAID "Bob Boyce 101, will appear to get more gas out per current, when they're really not (it's sort of an illusion)... But I don't want to get into the details in this thread."
those are the details i am talking about...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 12, 2009, 08:24:24 PM
no no, pay attention now...
YOU SAID "Over Faraday gas measurements are just calculation errors (Every one I've seen, at least) .. "
you've seen them... you infer you did the math to come to the conclusion they are errors... this was ONE POST AGO, DON'T PLAY STUPID LIKE I AM SUPPOSED TO SUPPLY YOU WITH THEM.
YOU THEN SAID "Bob Boyce 101, will appear to get more gas out per current, when they're really not (it's sort of an illusion)... But I don't want to get into the details in this thread."
those are the details i am talking about...
Being rude won't get us anywhere...
I haven't seen any efficiency measurements in a while, so I was hoping you could supply a link...
But, in a nutshell it comes down to:
1.) People overlook the temperature of their cells while calculating energy efficiency (important factor) ... Among other things, heat creates steam, which can give the appearance of hydroxy gas production . And..
2.) People don't understand that Faraday efficiency is "current efficiency" and nothing to do with voltage. And BB cells give the appearance of only 5 amps doing work when it's actually more (each cell chops the voltage down, but still has the amps).
PM me or start a new thread if you want to know more, or prove me wrong.. . Maybe I have a misunderstanding.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 12, 2009, 08:43:09 PM
Being rude won't get you anywhere...
I haven't seen any efficiency measurements in a while, so I was hoping you could supply a link...
But, in a nutshell it comes down to:
1.) People overlook the temperature of their cells while calculating energy efficiency (important factor) ... Among other things, steam can give the appearance of hydroxy gas production . And..
2.) People don't understand that Faraday efficiency is "current efficiency" and nothing to do with voltage. And BB cells give the appearance of only 5 amps doing work when it's actually more (each cell chops the voltage down).
PM me or start a new thread if you want to know more, or prove me wrong.. . Maybe I have a misunderstanding.
asking you for your data twice isn't being rude. you're the one who is still avoiding the 2 simple questions posed to you. which could be considered to be rude...
re: "haven't seen any efficiency measurements in awhile"
you didn't keep your math? ::)
in a nutshell it comes down to:
1) do you, or do you not, have your math that shows the over faraday measurements that you claimed to have seen were, in actuality, erroneous?
2) do you, or do you not have details about the efficiency of the boyce101 to add to this thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7453.msg177980#msg177980 i created for you to "get into the details"?
i really don't think you have either, but there's your thread to prove me wrong.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 12, 2009, 08:58:22 PM
asking you for your data twice isn't being rude. you're the one who is still avoiding the 2 simple questions posed to you. which could be considered to be rude...
re: "haven't seen any efficiency measurements in awhile"
you didn't keep your math? ::)
in a nutshell it comes down to:
1) do you, or do you not, have your math that shows the over faraday measurements that you claimed to have seen were, in actuality, erroneous?
2) do you, or do you not have details about the efficiency of the boyce101 to add to this thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7453.msg177980#msg177980 i created for you to "get into the details"?
i really don't think you have either, but there's your thread to prove me wrong.
...Check your new thread, Wilby. http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7453.msg177987;topicseen#msg177987
Maybe i'm getting grumpy or pedantic in my old age, but i'm really sick and tired of those who attempt to to piss all over the work and memory of great men and women who tried to make a real difference in this world. Dr. Kanzius' discoveries have the potential to change this planet.
Here is a seldom-seen follow-up news report from the Cleveland station showing the verification at Penn State, with over a dozen scientists observing the phenomena:
http://www.wkyc.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=articleplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=playlist&maven_referralObject=690385132
Lol, check out the ending statement about "Cold Fusion".. It's a hoot!
In the earlier Chnl 3 news report, APV Laboratory of Akron Ohio was cited; along with two of their engineers, John White and Edward Apsega, who verified the claims on film for the record. These two, plus the dozen scientists at Penn State, the people at the Erie location, and several other prominent scientists over the years who observed the phenomena are what we call: "VERIFICATIONS".
And they beat hell out of biased (and dead wrong) opinions every time.
Quote from: jibbguy on May 12, 2009, 11:27:32 PM
Here is a seldom-seen follow-up news report from the Cleveland station showing the verification at Penn State, with over a dozen scientists observing the phenomena:
http://www.wkyc.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=articleplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=playlist&maven_referralObject=690385132
That's the most promising and believable video I've seen on Kanzius salt water burning so far... Nice! But more replications/verifications are probably needed to make it accepted by sciencists, etc.
As already stated I personally don't believe this to be a hoax, but contrary to what Jibbguy says, all reports are lacking in crucial detail, with the science behind it being only speculative. This may well be because the science is not yet - or a least wasn't then - understood. But while these important and very crucial details are of no concern to the layman or uneducated - who would be non-the-wiser with them - the more informed may see this omission as suspicious - hence the skepticism.
In that clip it says they tested a 100 or so test tubes - assuming they were doping water with various compounds and electolytes, I'd love to know those results.
We must assume that by now, the reactions taking place will have been figured out - I mean it's not rocket science... well, no, er... yes, perhaps it is!
But anyway, to reiterate my earlier sentiments, it is the science that is breakthrough and of most interest, not how efficient the process is - that can wait until the science is fully understood.
Here is another good article on the experimental verification at Penn state.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water.html
And a discussion on a chemistry forum about the process.. It seems they don't know for sure.. I didn't read the whole thread though.
http://hypography.com/forums/chemistry/15804-kanzius-effect-rf-induced-flame-saltwater.html
Nice find, Newbie.
Its always funny to see, and we've seen it several times, when they say: "... Next week they meet with the government and military to discuss the technology"... And then, of course, SILENCE . You probably can't find an article or video published after that meeting (except for the Obituaries on Dr. Kanzius, or ones on the cancer research). Even Dr. Rustin Roy's personal website has very little on it (essentially just the Paper). This all points to it getting "secretized" or corporate shelved (probably a combination of both; like with the Meyer technology).
We saw the same thing with the local Columbus, OH TV coverage of Meyer's dune buggy, it said: "... Next week Stanley Meyer meets with the Army..." Lol then no more TV coverage.
Imo, of all the techs they fear most, that they jealously guard the hardest.... It is probably Hydroxy on demand. We can build it ourselves en masse, produce endless fuel ourselves, and it can be retrofitted to existing vehicles... in essence it could virtually END the use of oil as a fuel in a couple of years. No wonder they killed Stanley Meyer.... And no wonder you guys can't find the info on it that we would all like to see.
But the difference there is, to me that is an important "tell" that the technology really is valid; and not a point against it. If there was "free" access and study, we would see more papers, possibly even ones debunking it, who knows. But we don't see that at all.
Quote from: jibbguy on May 13, 2009, 07:37:23 PM
Nice find, Newbie.
Its always funny to see, and we've seen it several times, when they say: "... Next week they meet with the government and military to discuss the technology"... And then, of course, SILENCE . You probably can't find an article or video published after that meeting (except for the Obituaries on Dr. Kanzius, or ones on the cancer research). Even Dr. Rustin Roy's personal website has very little on it (essentially just the Paper). This all points to it getting "secretized" or corporate shelved (probably a combination of both; like with the Meyer technology).
I don't know why you would jump to conclusions about the technology being "secretized" by the government.. After all, going by conspiracy theory, they usually try to "secretize" over unity claims, and inventions... So, I don't see your logic there, since Kanzius never claimed OU.
Quote
We saw the same thing with the local Columbus, OH TV coverage of Meyer's dune buggy, it said: "... Next week Stanley Meyer meets with the Army..." Lol then no more TV coverage.
The news media is pretty irresponsible and naive when it comes to claims Meyers and Kanzius though.. Just to grab your attention, they'll say "car runs on water" or "Imagine, never having to pay for gas, etc" when referring to Kanzius tech.. They are all exaggerations at best.
Quote from: Loner on May 13, 2009, 09:20:18 PM
Actually, newbie (You really aren't, anymore, by the way.) ANY HHO production method that could run a vehicle in an on-demand mode would mean a complete destruction of the current monetary and energy cartels.
True, "Free fuel" would cost the government TONS of money if they didn't tax people for something else... Such as "fuel grade water" (or whatever a new energy source might be)... But I don't think the public would have a problem with this, to get rid of fossil fuel.
Quote
If you were making 300 billion/YR (Gross flow, but I digress.), how much would you spend to continue that income? I'm not saying that such things actually occur, but I can easily imagine the possibility, and to discount it is worse than sticking my head in the sand, as it were.
Is there anyone who would honestly attempt to say that the original "Tesla MT" was invalid? It's been demo'd in many collages by people trying to wake up the general population for at least 20 years now, but everyone I have actually talked to IRL says "Science Fiction!"
There has been a lot more social programming done than most will ever admit. I can't even call it a conspriacy, as people are aware, and really don't care. (Sorry. I think I"ve seen too much in my life, and the little guy, trying to help mankind, instead of him/herself, always seems to get the worst of it. IT gets to me at times and I apologise.)
Maybe.
Loner
I don't think that there is or ever has been anything wrong with Faraday's Laws - the guy was obviously extremely intelligent and knew what he was talking about.
Neither do I think that any of his laws of electrolysis are ever being violated. It's just that they depend on ionisation and electron exchanges that can be measured, so if ion charges are somehow being exchanged independently of our power source, we do not account for them. Hence we get what we might be perceived as over-Faraday results
As you say, it is a lot easier to get fairly accurate and predicted results from straight dc electrolysis, but once we start playing with any type of AC, the predicted results are much harder to achieve.
Not only this, but other elements might well be coming into play that give misleading results. For example the Kanzius discovery. How can this relate to Faraday's Laws of electrolysis when no electron source is provided? Yet combustible gas/es are still being evolved.
However, if it does come down to the behaviour of ions, and somehow the ions in the saltwater solution are exchanging charges between themselves to become atoms, then Faradays Laws still apply.
Great stuff, isn't it!
Incidentally Newbie, I agree with you about the news reports. They will always play the water fuel card to create a dramatic headline, which of course then opens the way for the critics and skeptics to debunk things before the science is fully examined, and often without a second thought. Let's face it they only care about selling stories!
Here is that Dr Rhodes paper.
I don't believe that I'm breaking any copyright laws as I'm sure it was once in the public domain.
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
William A. Rhodes, Ph.D. COMMON DUCT ATOMIC OXYHYDROGEN
Discovery & development. All laboratory data are presented.
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
(This paragraph is historic.)
Readers may wonder why I waited three decades before regaining
interest to probe several unanswered questions of this system. A
friend on the Internet discovered the second patent number under
my name and notified me that another party had patented a new
version of this concept and was claiming discovery of a new
gas. Inspection of his patent showed his claim as discoverer
was not valid, since my first patent predated his by eleven
years. I was not about to allow him that recognition. After
all, I reasoned, should the second man on the moon logically
claim the distinction of being the first? And so, research
began resulting in this document. The answers here are by no
means conclusive, but lead to a better understanding of a very
complicated reaction. If references are found proving priority
over mine, then I will yield. The name of the culprit was Yull
Brown of Australia, now deceased who "invented" Brown's Gas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMON DUCT ATOMIC ELECTROLYTIC OXYHYDROGEN
Parameters & Variables by
William A. Rhodes, Physicist
CONCEPT DISCOVERY
This concept was discovered in 1961 by request from a
manufacturer for a new and novel means for producing torch flame
temperatures beyond those of that era. Such system was
conceived and de- veloped involving electrolytic production of
mixed hydrogen and oxygen. Prior to that time, literature on
the subject focussed exclusively on separation of such gas and
conducting them out of the electrolyzer for tank storage.
Using hydrogen and oxygen immediately when generated through a
common duct was not found in the literature and it appeared to
be a new technology. The first patent (Apparatus For The
Electrolytic Production of Hydrogen And Oxygen For The Safe
Consumption patent # 3,262,872 issued July 26, 1966.) dealt with
intermixing the gases in an electrolyzer, issuing through a
common duct for instant use in a torch. 9 claims in the patent
read on; "an outlet for said generator to conduct a mixture of
hydrogen and oxygen gases therefrom," as opposed to other
electrolyzers using separate ducts for each gas.
The patent contains the financing party as co-inventor. His
contribution was limited to an additional small alcohol booster
tank, entraining the vapor for a reducing flame. The patent
appears to establish my precedence in the art. Starting in
1962, the Henes Mfg., Company of Phoenix sold many thousands of
their trademarked 'Water Welder' in several sizes, presently
continuing under another name.
Immediately after launching the Henes venture, I began research
on a large electrolyzer patented in March 1967 under the title,
MULTICELL OXYHYDROGEN GENERATOR (U.S Patent 3,310,483).
It contained 60 iron plates, nickel plated on the oxygen
generating side and iron on the hydrogen side. This patent
claims use of loosely fitting grooves for holding the plates in
tank 8"x8"x16"x3/4" Plexiglas. I previously discovered that
current could not bypass such plates loosely fitting in grooves
of proper design. The torch flame from that unit was 20 inches
long, melting everything into blue-white puddles, including
firebrick, ceramics and carbon (in argon atmosphere).
REFERENCE PROBLEMS
Of all elements, hydrogen and oxygen should hold no secrets.
Yet, in this example they do and have been troublesome. Many
experts in such gases contributed important knowledge hoping
such would answer our questions. Their offerings were accurate
for tank gases, but these were not tank gases and three major
obsta- cles remained. 1. flame propagation rate (burning
velocity) was unusually high. 2. Flame temperature is far
greater than tank gases. 3. Allowing the gases to mix at the
moment of genera- tion, and delivered in a common duct for
immediate consumption should contain both molecular and atomic
components. Until these were examined through experiment and
observation, conjecture and theories were invalid.
FLAME PROPAGATION RATE DETERMINATION
SETUP: A phototransistor cell was attached to a Plexiglas base
containing a groove to locate the start and finish marks on a
known length of transparent plastic tubing. An ignition chamber
with sparkplug was attached to a 2500 v transformer controlled
with a button switch. The electrolyzer was attached to the
input end of the spark chamber, a 22 ft length of tubing was
attached to the output side of the chamber. The first marked
tubing position was placed in the phototransistor groove, and
the 20 ft mark was placed on top of the first tubing mark.
Recording equipment included a dual pen strip-chart recorder
with parallel connection to a memo-scope and audio tape
recorder. NIST WWV clock ticks were coupled to all. With this
setup we hoped to capture precision measurements of flame front
velocity plus rise and fall time.
TESTS: Electrolyzer gas purged the tubing, and since the flame
is in the UV, the electrolyzer was allowed to run until a trace
of KOH allowed visual spectra to produce a slight pink-white.
Stripchart, memoscope and recorder running and standardized.
Spark initiated.
SIX SEQUENCES: Recorded timing for 10 feet of tubing was
consist- ently 1.225 milliseconds = 10,000 ft in 1.226 seconds,
or 8160 ft/sec div 1088 ft/sec (speed of sound not compensated
for our 1150 ft above sea level) was mach 7.5. Rise and fall
pulse duration via memo-scope was .5 millisecond with a total
baseline to baseline duration of .6 millisecond. With exception
of the small error between sea level and 1150 ft above sea
level, re- sults of these tests appear reliable. This
combination has MAXIMUM INSTABILITY. Any electrostatic
discharge can trigger a very mild explosion compared with tank
H2 & O2. The "ashes" from burning are of course pure water.
LUMPED FLAME RATE CONFIRMATION
The previous rate was resolved from pip spacings. These tests
were made with the plastic tubing wound into a small donut with
phototransistor mounted on the focal plane of a camera lens.
A flat-black background behind the donut and floodlight illumina-
tion allowed the donut image to be adjusted to cover the active
area of the phototransistor. The tubing beyond the measured
marks were covered to prevent errors from their exposure.
Instrumentation and standardization was identical to the
previous test. Recorded data of the previous were pips, marking
the beginning and ending of the flash. This time, burn
illumination produced a slightly rounded flat area with a
baseline to baseline rise and fall of .6 milliseconds as
before. (Previous test shots allowed strip chart recorder gain
adjustment for approximately 3 cm reading. The flat tracing
showed gradual rise and fall of about 2 mm from beginning to
end of a sequence.)
Time measurements of six sequences were identical to the previ-
ous. The last test was made with the tubing exit clamped off,
and gave readings identical with the others. No tubing rupture
occurred and explosion sound was muffled. These should provide
sufficient evidence of the flame propagation rate of such mixed
gases.
FLAME TEMPERATURE
Flame tests in an argon atmosphere directed on several layers of
carbon fiber fabric with its micron size filaments (Used on the
stealth fighter & bomber.) melted carbon filaments into
brilliant globules. This means carbon's melting temperature
3550C/6422F is exceeded, but its boiling point 4827C/8720F is
not attained. Past that point no reference exists.
LIFTING POWER OF ELECTROLYZED MIXED GASES
First, be aware we are dealing with common-ducted gases, data
being absent from NIST and the literature. There is also theory
vs experimental evidence to contend with. From the CRC
handbook: "Lifting power of 1 cu/ft hydrogen is about 0.075 lb
at 760 mm pressure."
SETUP: Our test volume chosen was 1 liter single duct electro-
lyzed gases. An igloo from a plastic pop bottle was cut to
provide exactly 1000 ml volume between the flat igloo door top,
and the upper dome. (1000 ml was from a standard 1000 ml flask,
transferred to the pop bottle, marking the door top, and extend-
ing the igloo another 2", where it was lathe cut and the doorway
snipped out. It was located inverted on the pan of our Mettler
milligram balance. An L shaped tube on lab stand extended
through the doorway and bent upward ending near the dome top,
leaving the balance completely free of interference. (A standard
refrigeration dryer capsule was inserted between the electrolyzer
and balance for eliminating water vapor entrainment.)
The gas generator was purged of air 15 minutes. The balance was
tare arbitrarily adjusted for 30 grams +- 1 mg. The igloo was
filled with pipe smoke; -6 mg deflection noted due to warmer
air. The gas tube was attached and maximum weight reduction of
0.510 grams was attained, rounded off to the nearest mg. Gas
input was allowed to flow for 30 minutes for accuracy. 5
minutes after gas cutoff, the balance returned to the pre-gas
reading caused by rapid diffusion of electrolyzed gases into
atmosphere. Comparing H2 lifting power, 1 liter mixed gases
multiplied to 1 cu/ft provided lifting power of 0.0311 lb. Or
41% that of H2.
Here we must consider single atoms of hydrogen 1 and oxygen 16
for lifting power against atmosphere (29+). Of course, if a
stoichiometric mix of H2 & O2 were present, O2 alone would have
a molecular weight of 32, and such gases introduced in the igloo
would show a slight weight increase as the combination spilled
*downward* through the doorway.
TESTS FOR STATIC GAS CHANGES
Over the years many suggested if such gases were collected and
remained unused, several kinds of recombinations would spontane-
ously occur regardless of temperature. Determining volumetric
changes of stored electrolyzed gases was done with a calibrated
100 ml domed bell of 1/4" thick Plexiglas open at the bottom and
sliding inside a closely fitting Plexiglas container, with an L
shaped gas entry tube extending upward under the bell. The bell
was held in place to prevent upward movement. 500 viscosity
silicone oil was poured into the outer cylinder as air inside
the bell was slowly exhausted, causing the oil to fill the bell
completely, continuing to flow slowly into the plastic vacuum
tubing, to eliminate all air. A cock on the metal L tube was
turned off, and the plastic tube pulled from the L and cleared
of oil.
Room temperature was adjusted for 80 F. When the temperature of
the oil over the bell read 75 F, gas electrolysis began,
allowing the plastic line to be purged of air, then connected to
the cock which was turned on. Gas filled the bell from top
downward below the 100 ml mark. The cock was turned off, gas
line pulled, and generator switched off. The cock was cracked
to bleed gas down to the 100 ml level and turned off. At the
end of 6 months, room temperature again increased oil
temperature to 75F. Volume change was not measurable. The gas
was then allowed to fill the in- verted bell on the gram
balance. Calculations gave the same answer as previous,
comparing lifting ability as being 41% that of H2. (Plus or
minus 2% error.) To prevent any light activity, the system was
covered with black polyethylene.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
The only purpose of KOH is to create the lowest possible resist-
ance eg, highest electrical conductivity. Being slowly depleted
by mist generated during electrolysis, specific gravity must
occasionally be corrected by addition of KOH.
It is noted that any sharp metallic whisker in the storage
atmos- phere could cause an explosion, similar to the dangers of
storing high percentage hydrogen peroxide, where the entire
contents can burst into high pressure steam with disastrous
results, just because somewhere in the interior someone forgot
to round off a sharp edge. On the other hand, these mixed gases
were ignited repeatedly in a 4 liter container of 16 gage iron
with flat ends and sparkplug. The only evidence of ignition was
a sharp click, with no damage to the vessel.
A recent report revealed one experimenter was wounded with
shrap- nel from such explosion. The only way this might happen
is from accumulation in an unusually thin container, or one made
from an easily fractured plastic. However, a duplication of the
original multicell unit was constructed of 3/4" Plexiglas with
an interior volume of 8 liters. Half of this was filled with
electrolyte leaving 4 liters for foam and gas accumulation,
(Identical to the volume of the iron container. The multicell
had a 2.5" diameter rupturable diaphragm of food grade Saran
wrap. The unit was set on a stand in the open and ignited. The
resultant pop splintered the case into many pieces which were
all deposited within a radius of 5 feet around the stand. The
diaphragm remained in- tact. Such indicated the sonic wave
front was responsible in- stead of pressure which would have
ruptured the diaphragm.
These tests allowed us to design electrolyzer tanks of materials
and thicknesses that could contain flashbacks. Viewing the
permanent Plexiglas multicell in operation, electrolyte foam
rises upward, but at maximum elevation allows sufficient gas
space above. Therefore no purpose is served with designs
containing more gas than necessary for conduction out of the
reservoir. Extrapolation of chart curves indicate a possible
diesel type explosion as pres- sure approaches 400 psi.
However, this is not conclusive. Generation of such single
ducted gases appears to be an event not found in nature, unless
lightening produces them.
FLASHBACK ARRESTERS
There are two types of arrester. For small units of one or two
liters total tank capacity, two aquarium aerator stones are
adequate. Over time they tend to clog with KOH vapor, but can
be easily cleared by backflushing with 50% phosphoric acid. For
larger units a water filled U-tube is service free and best,
since its inertia disallows flame movement through the water. An
alternate to the U-tube is two tubes of different diameters.
[INCOMPLETE]
FLAME PROPAGATION RATES OF SEVERAL GASES
Flame propagation rates refer to complete combustion mixtures to
fill a measured length of tubing and after ignition, combustion
speed is measured against standard time pulses from WWV
transmis- sions from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. From the literature, the Butane rate is 60 ft/sec.
Acetylene 330 ft/sec. Tank Hydrogen (H2) 680 ft/sec. Since no
literature could be found for mixed atomic gas, burning velocity
was precision measured in our lab.
ENERGY CONVERSION LIMITATIONS
Be aware of this: If a current i flows for a time t and reacts
with water whose electrochemical equivalent is e, mass of the
gases released is: m=eit. This means present chemistry is
forev- er restricted by this equation. Direct current wave
shapes, frequencies, half-waves, full-waves, nothing will allow
gas delivery approaching unity. Some claim that under certain
elec- trical manipulations, cells run cooler, or may produce
more gas than before. Yet, if precision measurement instruments
are avail- able, they will always show results exactly following
this equa- tion. Amperage readings made of rectified direct
current by some hang-on ammeters produce enormous errors,
leading the observer to believe cell efficiency has improved.
This requires special attention to exhibit trustworthy data.
ELECTROLYSIS FUNDAMENTALS
Potassium Hydroxide (KOH) was chosen because it has the lowest
electrical resistance attainable. I also does not cause boiling
when mixed with water. Even then, it is best to use half wave
rectification of electrical energy to allow the system to
operate for longer periods without boiling. After long periods
of shut down, atmospheric CO2 is absorbed, causing carbonates to
accumulate. In turn, they reduce output efficiency, and the
electrolyte must be dumped and new supplied.
Much of that can be prevented with Vanadium Pentoxide powder, 1
gram per liter or half liter. This is a permanent additive,
increasing cell efficiency by lowering cell resistance, reducing
heating. The ideal half wave voltage across the electrolyzer is
1.98 volts. But don't let this fool you. 2 volts works just as
well. Engineers are prone to quibble forever over fractions,
but they just waste time. The 120 V.AC transformer must supply 3
volts ac before being half wave rectified with a 12 volt silicon
rectifier which should be capable of 50 amps but only uses about
half that and its positive flexible lead going directly to the +
nickel or stainless steel anode. That way, the system runs
relatively cool.
Since gas demands vary widely, this provides data for the
original unit which can be scaled up as required. The
electrolyte is pure water with 28% Potassium Hydroxide (KOH) by
weight. It could have been more, but would not leave space for
periodic water addition. The Cathode is iron sheet or a tank of
iron pipe, It produces the hydrogen gas. The oxygen Anode is
the positive electrode and can be made with either pure Nickel,
nickel plated iron or stainless steel. If a tank is used, it is
a split cylinder welded to the tank top which has a deep groove
machined in its top rim. That is were an O-ring is placed to
separate the Anode from the Cathode. There is not much more to
it, but the arrangement can be seen in my U. S. Patent: Jul
l966 ----- 3,262,872 ----- Single Cell Oxyhydrogen Generator
The additional sub-units shown are unnecessary, and were placed
there without my permission by my patent attorney. A flashback
arrester is needed as mentioned previously, and the torch tip is
a #22 hypodermic needle, just the right size for the one pint of
electrolyte in a 1 quart chamber.
Here is another very interesting paper:
http://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/egas-calculations.pdf
Incidentally an email reply from Rustum Roy states that more details on the Kanzius discovery will be published on his website in due course.
Take a look at my 13 tube in tubes video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cscJUwHIA10
Quote from: TheNOP on March 17, 2009, 10:21:27 PM
look and listen more carefully.
the bolt is connected to the sec circuit with a stainless wire too.
May just be antena
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 09, 2009, 04:49:07 AM
As the 'Cooking with Hydroxy' thread seems to be the only active thread at present, and as I don't want to hijack that or push it anymore off subject, I've decided to bring this thread back up.
I've now designed a few experiments to test a few of my theories. Theories which I touched on earlier in this thread and which to many tend to fly in the face of the accepted model of how standard electrolysis works.
To my mind, if you do not understand or cannot comprehend what is happening at molecular level, if you do not understand basic chemical reactions, how can you even consider building any kind of advanced WFC?
I see people building all sorts of fancy coils, playing with various pulsing circuits, talking about building... gas processors, when they have no idea what is actually happening at molecular level, or what electro-chemical processes might be occurring.
Unlike most around here, I'm not particularly interested in OU - I'm not sure it even exists and won't be wasting my time going on a wild goose chase.
Hartman has a big money prize for all you guys achieving OU - kinda strange why none of you have yet claimed it!
What I do feel needs more research and is open to a much greater understanding is the dissociation of the water molecule - it is far less understood than generally accepted. What particularly interests me is what is actually happening at molecular level, and how these reactions can be influenced.
Unlike Mr H2OPower who popped across to this forum recently saying he could explain the Meyer WFC, but expected everyone else to build a Meyer-type gas processor, and who supposedly had 'Proof of Concept' when is all he had was ideas, I prefer to deal with real science and start at the beginning.
What concerns me somewhat is just how quickly this thread drifted down the board once I stopped posting on it. It sort of worries me that so few people were prepared to comment. I can only assume it was because no one had a clue what I was talking about and hence an education issue, in which case inteligent productive discussion might become difficult.
To be honest I'm not sure it will even be worth my effort posting here as the forum is continually littered with utter nonsense and abusive posts from the obviously mentally challenged, with no moderator intervention (Oh, in saying that, he did threaten to ban me earlier in the year for expressing my opinion). It also occurs to me that discussion is only really active when the village idiots are on a day out.
But, we'll see what happens.
Wow ,I am impressed,u can't see the forest for all the atoms...
QuoteIncidentally an email reply from Rustum Roy states that more details on the Kanzius discovery will be published on his website in due course.
Hopefully that means soon.
Another contact is Brent Haddad who directs the Center for Integrated Water Research at the University of California, Santa Cruz. If you are interested.
(according to this article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water_2.html)
Lol it's always about "isolating Hydrogen" to these people (referring to the Doc at UC Santa Cruz). That way a huge infrastructure is always needed to dispense and store it ;)
Current designs of electric fuel cells require 99.999% pure H to operate ("The 5 Nines of Purity"), otherwise they are quickly contaminated. You know, when it is combusted, H doesn't give a damn about the "purity" lol, and when it is created on-demand, it doesn't need any storage ;)
What, no mention of using hydroxy to directly power ICE vehicles? ... It seems there never is with these people (as with the MIT "plasmatron" project) ;)
Because it appears to be a "forbidden" subject. Once breached, someone might start asking what ever happened to Stanley Meyer, and his technology. Or they might wonder why hydroxy boost hasn't been nationally embraced yet.
Or they may even ask why a major corporation has the power, or right, to keep highly important, clean, and efficient technologies that could greatly benefit the planet from ever seeing the light of day?... I wonder what might become of the public Stock prices, or the Consumer Sales, of such a corporation if it was found that they were shelving such a technology.... Denying the people of its benefits... When they were never elected to anything.... When they are simply corporate executives with no immunity against prosecution or going to jail for illegal Trust activity (lol "Yes", the Federal Anti-Trust laws are still on the books, even if they haven't been used much lately ;) ).
Perhaps they had better dust it off and make it public before it's too late, and they are caught with it still on the shelf. Timing is everything: Release it now and you are "heroes". Wait to long and you are in Court, and trying to transfer your assets to your Mother-In-Law to keep from losing everything ;)
QuoteWhat, no mention of using hydroxy to directly power ICE vehicles? ... It seems there never is with these people (as with the MIT "plasmatron" project)
Because it appears to be a "forbidden" subject. Once breached, someone might start asking what ever happened to Stanley Meyer, and his technology. Or they might wonder why hydroxy boost hasn't been nationally embraced yet.
Hardly surprising really as that tends to be the domain of the uneducated and ignorant - dipshit journalists and reporters out for a quick headline with no regard for any science.
So not really sure it's quite a simple as that.
Any educated man worth his salt would not jeapordise his credibility by jumping on the 'water-powered cars' bandwagon, unless they had hard facts to back up such a statement.
Hydrogen is a fuel. Water on the other hand is only currently a source of fuel. And, as long as it takes more energy to to dissociate water than is returned on combustion this will forever remain so.
You have to consider that the moment anyone actually achieves (beyond doubt) a self-sustaining closed loop hydroxy on-demand system, that this in itself will constitute Over-Unity.
Something of course that many great minds consider impossible!
That said, great minds have been wrong before - take for example Einstein.
You just called me a "Dipshit".
I have reported on these technologies many times, and probably a million people have read my articles. I've spent countless hours researching them, and spoke with dozens of people who know much more about these subjects than you pretend to. I stand by my work, and i have defended myself successfully over and over again in "comments" sections against people who make you look like a retard.
Why don't you write an article yourself debunking it all if you feel so passionately about it? But i guess it's much easier to just snidely criticize others. You and your ilk disgust me, and many others here.
... Do us a favor: Give your constant negative comments based only on your WORTHLESS OPINION a rest, and just go to back to dis-ing "cold fusion" or whatever it was you came from.
Jibbguy, Are you really a journalist or reporter "out for a quick headline with no regard for any science."?
I think you are just being combative here.. Anyway.. What publication do you write for?
QuoteYou just called me a "Dipshit".
Sorry about that, the comment was not directed at you specifically, but from what followed in your post I obviously greatly underestimated your limited knowledge of science and over estimated your intelligence.
Perhaps you would find 'ignorant arsehole' to be more agreeable! ;)
Incidentally, I didn't call you a 'Dipshit', you simply labelled yourself as one of those I was talking about... But I guess you've unwittingly emphasised my point. Who do you write for... Marvel Comics?
@ Newbie use your marvelous research skills and find out.... Lol, or were you accusing my of lying? "Combative" is often defined as: "Having the nerve to disagree with me" ;)
@ Farrah : Thx for the comment, it was rather illuminating to the others here i think.. And better than any reply i could have made lol.
Quote from: jibbguy on May 14, 2009, 04:02:51 PM
@ Newbie use your marvelous research skills and find out.... Lol, or were you accusing my of lying? "Combative" is often defined as: "Having the nerve to disagree with me" ;)
Read what you just wrote and tell me that isn't "combative".... C'mon now.. Grow up.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_jibbguy_080415_brown_s_gas__28_22hho_22_29_.htm
I assume this is you Jibby.
Guess I had you labelled right then... but you're also bordering on Crank.
Funny, you say how deeply you researched the subject then give the credit of the discovery of hydroxy properties to Yull Brown. Google Dr. William Rhodes, or read one of my previous posts.
Your article is full of speculation and typical of a journalist, reporter or writer well out of their depth in this field. Do you always just take everything that is told to you as gospel... untill it is disproven? You're far more niave than I originally took you for.
You say that people you have spoken with in the past make me look like a retard - what in heavens name did they make of you then?
You appear to be living in your own little fantasy world, where science can be disregarded for the greater good of the planet. Get real!
@ Farrah: Thx for your "Opinion". Waiting to see your article debunking it, though... ;)
As for who discovered Brown's Gas, it was known for over well over a hundred years; but he was the first to commercialize it.... Perhaps you need to do some more research (oh thats right, i forgot: Your negative opinions are all that matter, and should be enough to convince us, so who needs research?) .
Here's a suggestion: Try to look upon some new ideas without trying to tear them down. I know it must hard for you... But you might even find it intellectually satisfying. You know, your own self-worth IS NOT tied to attempting to destruct others'.... And that will lead to a very bleak life.
@ Newbie: Actually i was making a little joke in referring to your earlier scurrilous accusations against the late Dr. John Kanzius (...which proved rather ill-advised in the end, no?).
Well, i'm not dead, i can reply just fine, so i don't mind so much when you turn your attacks to me ;)
Quote from: jibbguy on May 14, 2009, 06:21:27 PM
@ Newbie: Actually i was making a little joke in referring to your earlier scurrilous accusations against the late Dr. John Kanzius (...which proved rather ill-advised in the end, no?).
The
skepticism, that you call "scurrilous accusations" still stands, as does "Replications (meaning more than 1-2) = Proof" ... to the science community, and me as well.
Do you see how you are jumping to conclusions here, and twisting the truth? And apparently you do the same in your articles...
test
Isn't the main goal to use less current and yet produce much more gas than the usual Faraday standard? But, there is a catch. The cell must stay cool even after hours continuous use. I saw Stan Meyer do it and I do believe from my own experiences that he was legit. To fake what he did is pretty hard to do. Making it do what his did is also not as easy without the full details. there is only so much you can do with an alternator and some steel tubes. To do a replication you have to do it exactly as he did which I am currently doing, and here it is, BUT, The cell alone will cost me over 1000 dollars just in materials rough estimate. That's a lot of money for me right now.
What will this prove to me? That I did or did not do it. I don't ever expect to have the resources to run an automobile conveniently from water alone so that is not my goal. If I can run a genset from 10 or 20 watts of power and some water, I got myself a means to survive just about anywhere near water.
Assuming I am successful in the near future beyond my expectations, Do I know what's really going on in my cells? No, I can only speculate until I or any other being on this planet is able to correctly see or whatever it is they do to confirm what is really happening. Sure, I can read all kinds of scientific literature and say this and that fit the description but in reality this is new science and there are no words or scientific standards to go by. The old models won't work beyond what they describe in today's world. Science needs an upgrade!
What I believe is happening with the science of alternative energy for the past 100 years or so is the discovery of a new energy that all it's discoverers have made their own words for. Dark Matter, Negative Energy, Radiant Energy, Orgone Energy, ORME, Free Energy, The GOD Particle, Universal Energy, etc. And then we have the dogma of science that will always rear it's ugly head as long as the world is the way it is today.
Farrah Day, Have you learned anything from this forum useful towards your goals? If not, then why even come back? Are you here to relate what you have learned and offer possible solutions to the same problems we all have at one time or another? Like Science, this forum has a bit of dogma itself, maybe that's a natural phenomena from social web tools used for geeks trying to be scientific and all.
OK, i'll quit blabbering... I'm just so frustrated cuz I can't get my Pirate inspired Earth Battery Joule Thief circuit to work. Damn!
Quote from: HeairBear on May 15, 2009, 12:41:56 AM
Isn't the main goal to use less current and yet produce much more gas than the usual Faraday standard?
Wouldn't that be sweet.. It might be possible some day (with LENR type technologies, perhaps), but I've given up on the Stan Meyer concepts...
Quote
But, there is a catch. The cell must stay cool even after hours continuous use. I saw Stan Meyer do it and I do believe from my own experiences that he was legit.
I've seen quite a few Meyer videos, but not one were he measures the cell's temperature. Do you have a link?
Quote
To fake what he did is pretty hard to do. Making it do what his did is also not as easy without the full details. there is only so much you can do with an alternator and some steel tubes. To do a replication you have to do it exactly as he did which I am currently doing, and here it is, BUT, The cell alone will cost me over 1000 dollars just in materials rough estimate. That's a lot of money for me right now.
What will this prove to me? That I did or did not do it. I don't ever expect to have the resources to run an automobile conveniently from water alone so that is not my goal. If I can run a genset from 10 or 20 watts of power and some water, I got myself a means to survive just about anywhere near water.
Assuming I am successful in the near future beyond my expectations, Do I know what's really going on in my cells? No, I can only speculate until I or any other being on this planet is able to correctly see or whatever it is they do to confirm what is really happening. Sure, I can read all kinds of scientific literature and say this and that fit the description but in reality this is new science and there are no words or scientific standards to go by. The old models won't work beyond what they describe in today's world. Science needs an upgrade!
This is all speculation though! If the world had some working WFCs it wouldn't be, but until then I don't think science needs an upgrade.
What is this? The dastardly duo? Or are you Farrah Day's Side kick? Or maybe your his second personality? You two are so very much alike. Face it, your a troll! Or should I say both of you?
@Jibby
You see me as a negative so-called nay-sayer, whereas in fact I simply have a reserve of healthy skepticism.
I would not be here if I did not think that there were possibilities. I would not be here if I did not think that we might be missing something, and that there actually might be something of real value in all this. If I was an out-and-out sceptic like you seem to think I am, I would not be interested in the science, would not be wasting my time here, and certainly would not be having this pointless conversation with you right now!
Your article is extremely biased and highlights everything that is wrong with the mentality of the people who write this stuff. These such articles clearly emphasise that the writer has no education in science, no scientific background on which to call upon and no solid foundation on which to build a case - one way or the other. You have made no attempt whatsoever to sort out the fact from the fiction.
You, in your article have simply assumed that everyone one of these inventions has been legitimate and that every so-called inventor has been genuine, and indeed that everyone of these technologies has been suppressed - all without an ounce of solid evidence or unquestionable proof to back up the claims. It’s pretty pathetic really… isn’t it?
And, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but… Santas not real!
@Hairbear
New science or not it will conform to certain known laws and principles - it's not magic. My objective is to try to understand what is happening in terms of the science. What reactions are taking place. Much has yet to be explained - much is conjecture.
How did Meyer achieve high volumes of gas from extremely low currents?
Using high voltage to pull water molecules apart just doesn't cut it. You'll find that Meyer says a great deal, giving the impression that he understood it all, but never once did he provide a balanced chemical equation to explain the reactions or processes involved. I'm not saying he never achieved anything, just that if he did, he was well out of his depth with the science behind it. The Kanzius discovery I believe may well breathe new life into the Meyer technology, in that this is significantly different to standard everyday electrolysis to perhaps go a way to explaining Meyer. Now we just need to explain the Kanzius process!
Oh, I see you're now stooping to petty 'name-calling' too. Join the club, the more the merrier!
Quote from: HeairBear on May 15, 2009, 02:34:58 AM
What is this? The dastardly duo? Or are you Farrah Day's Side kick? Or maybe your his second personality? You two are so very much alike. Face it, your a troll! Or should I say both of you?
Troll? Nah... If I was a trolling, you'd see me in a different thread trying to stir things up (gravity wheel threads, etc).. I'm just trying to show why skepticism is good, and totally believing Stan Meyer (and others) is bad. People seem to think the opposite ... Skepticism is bad (and Faraday and me are the evil debunker trolls), and believing all the far out energy stories is good (and perfectly logical)... Wake up!!
I just like doing experiments and scientific research WRT energy.. That's why I'm here.. I'm opened minded about new energy sources, and I was hoping to find some more science oriented people here to maybe look into Kanzius or LENR.. It's pointless to go to a science forum and talk about Kanzius, Meyer, etc... The science forum people are as closed minded to Kanzius & Coldfusion as most of you guys are about Skepticism & Science.
Gee since you apparently analyzed my articles and couldn't find anything else specific to attack me with...... What does that tell us lol?
I guess you were hoping i would have "Dennis Lee" mentioned or something hehehe ;) . No such luck.... So pick something to back your claims and let's have at it. I knew i would have to deal with people like you when i wrote these and put my name on them.... And believe me, much better debating opponents than you have come at me ;)
Well, since you operate purely in the realm your personal opinion... Here's mine: You ARE a knee-jerking naysayer, and you do NOT qualify as a "legitimate skeptic" (....because you don't bring anything to the table but your opinions). Eric at "Philadelphia Skeptics" (who really should be your model, imo) at least has facts at his disposal, he does his homework, and is generally polite. I respect his intellect and he also knows when to shut up or stay away from a topic ;)
I suspect he understands the true situation of many of these cases... That there is a VERY GOOD REASON why there is so little of substance available to debunk many of the "F-E" topics: Because they are "forbidden" subjects. You see, the people who suppress have two options: Try to debunk, or remain silent (the premise of the latter being that: "Any mention at all is worse than no mention"). When the choice is to "remain silent" ; then you get no debunking points to help you, no Papers, no University Studies, nothing. That's why you will often have such a hard time finding anything of substance to refute these claims (the Kanzius technology being a prime example).
Here's the difference between a legitimate skeptic and a naysayer in a nutshell: The naysayer will first decide some idea or technology is "B-S", then spend their time trying to justify their opinion..... Get it? ..... Actually, your attack of my work AFTER i challenged your and your buddy's little soup-pissing spree on Dr. Kanzius shows this rather well... So thanks for dis'ing my work as proof of point ;)
You called me "dip shit" by inference, then followed it up with "arse-hole" and that is your idea of "good science", lol? You showed us quite graphically you are a person who is governed by emotion, not logic; who then attempts to hide behind "scientific method" as a cloak. The worst problem of all for you with this type behavior is it makes you easy to manipulate.
That was what my above comment about how enlightening your "arsehole" post was referring to: Now whenever someone reads one of your attack posts they can filter it through what they now know about your personality and where you are coming from. And this is completely your own fault: When you try to shove your negative opinions on everyone with nothing to back them, that's all they really have to go on. So thanks again for walking into it ;)
But you are right in one aspect: This is utterly pointless. So unless you specifically attack the data in one of my article segments or posts in the future with something of substance (more "Last Word" ad homenims without anything to back them are "ok" LOL), i will be happy to leave you to your "Kingdom of the Damning" ;)
Do you actually read any posts Jibby? Brown's gas vs Rhodes???
Have you actually read any of my earlier posts on this thread Jibby?
No of course you haven't, as if you had you'd realise just how much garbage you are posting.
It's like talking to a brick wall, you don't listen do you? And just remember it was you that became abusive in the first place, not me!
Do us all a favour and bugger off and write a poem or something - science is not really your forte!
Quote from: newbie123 on May 15, 2009, 01:02:28 AM
Wouldn't that be sweet.. It might be possible some day (with LENR type technologies, perhaps), but I've given up on the Stan Meyer concepts...
I've seen quite a few Meyer videos, but not one were he measures the cell's temperature. Do you have a link?
This is all speculation though! If the world had some working WFCs it wouldn't be, but until then I don't think science needs an upgrade.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic.html#r163
I would think that only a very small amount of water would dissociate to (OH)- and (H3O)+. Somewhere on the order of a few millionths of a mole per mole of water.You would have to have something in the water to grab that (OH)- or (H3O)+ as its being made.Thermal energy(heat) would be enough to make it happen.Just thinking out loud here.Triffid
QuoteI've seen quite a few Meyer videos, but not one were he measures the cell's temperature. Do you have a link?
There are no Meyer videos or even data that I know of that shows temperature of his cells. Mind you, this also goes for gas output, power input and most other measurements that would be of scientific interest.
Quote from: triffid on May 19, 2009, 03:52:51 PM
I would think that only a very small amount of water would dissociate to (OH)- and (H3O)+. Somewhere on the order of a few millionths of a mole per mole of water.You would have to have something in the water to grab that (OH)- or (H3O)+ as its being made.Thermal energy(heat) would be enough to make it happen.Just thinking out loud here.Triffid
Hi Triffid, you mean dissociates into OH- and H+, things don't tend to dissociate into something larger ;)
When you say that you think that only a small amount of water dissociates, what process are you referring to?
How about starting with the basic chemical math of electrolysis.
What exactly does faraday"s calcs show, and what does it prove? And does its theory coinside with current understanding and theory of electrolysis.
Given the basic chemical model, how much hho would be made for what cost?
The basic mechanics of electrolysis is not well understood by most, I would imagine that to understand how to imporve it, you first need to understand what is happening and how to make it happen better, or differently in some way.
Just some thoughts.
Hey FarrahDay,I was referring to your post on page one of this thread addressed to "Alan".You were talking about pairs of water molecules and I have seen (H3O)+ as a secondary product in chemical reactions even if for a second or shorter.Now one molecule of water dissociates to (H)+ and (OH)-.But I was considering two water molecules bouncing into each other to form products(H3O)+ and (OH)-.I just saying how small an amount of these two products are really made.You also gave no indication of the time period involved.If I pour a liter of water into a glass and leave it alone and open to the air.It will evaporate within 2-3 weeks.I assumed you were taiking about one hour periods.Triffid
Sorry, I said secondary product but meant " intermediate product".Which means its formed along the way as the chemical reaction occurs but is never found as a finished product when the reaction is over.Triffid
QuoteHow about starting with the basic chemical math of electrolysis.
What exactly does faraday"s calcs show, and what does it prove? And does its theory coinside with current understanding and theory of electrolysis.
Given the basic chemical model, how much hho would be made for what cost?
The basic mechanics of electrolysis is not well understood by most, I would imagine that to understand how to imporve it, you first need to understand what is happening and how to make it happen better, or differently in some way.
Just some thoughts.
Yes, I do tend to like to start at the beginning.
There is nothing wrong with Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis, and there never will be. Faraday's Law simply takes into account every electron - every ion charge exchange - so it cannot be wrong. However, there is no stipulation that electrons have to be provided solely by the power supply - which tends to be where we measure current flow from.
Everyone knows of the simple chemical equation for electrolysis of water (or hydrolysis), but this does not take into account the action of an electrolyte in the process.
QuoteThe basic mechanics of electrolysis is not well understood by most, I would imagine that to understand how to imporve it, you first need to understand what is happening and how to make it happen better, or differently in some way.
This I totally agree with this. Most people know how to achieve the required reaction in either hydrolysis or electroplating, etc, but not many people fully understand the mechanics of it all. Electrolysis of water might ultimately be just the dissociation of the water molecule via the passage of an electric current in order to produce hydrogen and oxygen, but this statement is extremely over-simplified to say the least and gives no insight into all the processes involved.
Scientists are still puzzling over water, so it's not surprising that there are still unknowns even to something seemingly so elementry as hydrolysis. I don't think anyone fully understands what effect passing a electric current through water has on water molecule cluster sizes or how these effect the mechanisim by which the H+ ion travels from water molecule to water molecule and cluster to cluster.
I believe many questions will be answered once the science behind the Kanzius discovery becomes known and detailed to the general scientific community.
Even then I think that Faraday's Laws will apply if the reactions involve charge exchanges - which surely they must - but how can you relate it to a power source that is providing no electrons?
Every electrolyser built will abide by Faraday's Laws, it's just that some will be very efficient, while others will not. As well as all the variables involved in cell design, even adding electrolyte alters the electrolysis initiation voltage, so most people will never be running an electrolyser at maximum efficiency.
For any given electrolyser to be running at maximum efficiency, you would have to have the individual cells at exactly the minimum voltage in order to initiate electrolysis, cell electrode spacing would need to be optimum as would the plate area.
All that said, I think that there may well be a less power hungry way in which to increase the ionisation of water, which of course is the first step in the process.
I'm away for a few weeks now, but just to add some food for thought before I go.
On giving things some further consideration, and after talking with Loner, I'm rather inclined to think that there could be real promise in pursuing TPU's and the Stiffler ccts.
This is because all of the WFC set ups that claim to be achieving higher than expected efficiencies seem to utilise inductors of some sort. Whilst I'm not a proponent of OU, I do not dismiss the possibility that we can extract some energy from the space around us - after all, it is not only composed of the EM from our star, but also our planets magnetic field and indeed cosmic radiation. We are literally drenched in potential energy.
To my mind this would be an ocean of 'free' energy for us to dip into should we just figure out how to do it.
Build a TPU or Stiffler device and incorporate it into an efficient WFC and we might see real results. Check out the TPU forum threads, and Stiffler. This possibly adds some credence to WFC's that utilise inductor ccts and pulsing, and might very well explain the claimed higher efficiencies.
Loner, if your looking in, when I get back I'm going to design and build a TPU to experiment with. Problem is I don't have much to go on in terms of what I would be trying to achieve and hence exactly what I would be trying to design... so your input will be greatly appreciated.
Would be great if we both built a unit so we could compare notes as we go. Understandably it might be better to start a new thread over at the TPU site... anyway see you in a few weeks.
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 15, 2009, 04:56:56 AM
@Jibby
You see me as a negative so-called nay-sayer, whereas in fact I simply have a reserve of healthy skepticism.
Finally someone with sense on these forums. So many quacktards. Just a few gems in the bucket.
Lol a more obvious example of "baiting" i have never seen, and i've seen quite a few.
The funny part is, the harder they try the more ridiculous it looks to everyone else ;)
Enjoy your holiday!
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 20, 2009, 11:21:12 AM
Yes, I do tend to like to start at the beginning.
There is nothing wrong with Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis, and there never will be. Faraday's Law simply takes into account every electron - every ion charge exchange - so it cannot be wrong. However, there is no stipulation that electrons have to be provided solely by the power supply - which tends to be where we measure current flow from.
Everyone knows of the simple chemical equation for electrolysis of water (or hydrolysis), but this does not take into account the action of an electrolyte in the process.
This I totally agree with this. Most people know how to achieve the required reaction in either hydrolysis or electroplating, etc, but not many people fully understand the mechanics of it all. Electrolysis of water might ultimately be just the dissociation of the water molecule via the passage of an electric current in order to produce hydrogen and oxygen, but this statement is extremely over-simplified to say the least and gives no insight into all the processes involved.
Scientists are still puzzling over water, so it's not surprising that there are still unknowns even to something seemingly so elementry as hydrolysis. I don't think anyone fully understands what effect passing a electric current through water has on water molecule cluster sizes or how these effect the mechanisim by which the H+ ion travels from water molecule to water molecule and cluster to cluster.
I believe many questions will be answered once the science behind the Kanzius discovery becomes known and detailed to the general scientific community.
Even then I think that Faraday's Laws will apply if the reactions involve charge exchanges - which surely they must - but how can you relate it to a power source that is providing no electrons?
Every electrolyser built will abide by Faraday's Laws, it's just that some will be very efficient, while others will not. As well as all the variables involved in cell design, even adding electrolyte alters the electrolysis initiation voltage, so most people will never be running an electrolyser at maximum efficiency.
For any given electrolyser to be running at maximum efficiency, you would have to have the individual cells at exactly the minimum voltage in order to initiate electrolysis, cell electrode spacing would need to be optimum as would the plate area.
All that said, I think that there may well be a less power hungry way in which to increase the ionisation of water, which of course is the first step in the process.
Any law that says there is a limit to something is made to be broken, such as the speed of light has been broken...
Is a tree sucking up tons of water overunity ?
In a techincal kind of way, yes. Capilary action takes water, from a position of lower gravitational energy position to a higher gravitational energy.
But they otherside will argue all day with BS. They don't readily accept common sense. When you catch them in check mate, they simply say, well build it then, see you can't so its bs.
This must be all BS then.... Nutty scientists..
http://biomechanics.bio.uci.edu/_html/nh_biomech/trees/trees.htm
Quote from: llewgnal on June 07, 2009, 12:12:41 PM
Any law that says there is a limit to something is made to be broken, such as the speed of light has been broken...
prove it. :P
you assume laws are flawed, but..., you are using a theory to make that assumption.
thats look weird.
laws applies to what they were "proven" to applies too.
go outside of what they are defining and they will stop to be appliable.
does that mean that they are completly wrong ?
Quote from: d3adp00l on June 07, 2009, 01:18:35 PM
In a techincal kind of way, yes. Capilary action takes water, from a position of lower gravitational energy position to a higher gravitational energy.
But they otherside will argue all day with BS. They don't readily accept common sense. When you catch them in check mate, they simply say, well build it then, see you can't so its bs.
you only need to prove why a law, effect or phenomena does not apply to what you do to refute the nay sayer.
but more often then other, you will not be able to do so.
most of the time it will be like trying to say that Ohm's law does not apply to resistors in series, that magnetic field have nothing to do with induction, etc..., etc...
Haven't found microwaves thru steel bar yet ,but here's one http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/has-warp-speed-.html
Quote from: llewgnal on June 08, 2009, 10:43:31 AM
Haven't found microwaves thru steel bar yet ,but here's one http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/has-warp-speed-.html
does that mean the velocity in e=mc^ and all the other formulas that are using the speed of light are wrong ?
YES!
Seriously, if E=mc^squared is wrong(I'm not saying it's wrong) then, all who built off of that are going to be wrong also. The simple equation only demonstrates a certain view in a certain way. It works, but, not all the time in every aspect. The speed of light is not a constant. It can be easily proven by experimentation, the speeding up and slowing down of light.
Is light a wave or a particle?
Quote from: HeairBear on June 08, 2009, 07:11:55 PM
It works, but, not all the time in every aspect. The speed of light is not a constant. It can be easily proven by experimentation, the speeding up and slowing down of light.
that is an other way of saying what i said previously.
Quotelaws applies to what they were "proven" to applies too.
go outside of what they are defining and they will stop to be appliable.
Quote from: HeairBear on June 08, 2009, 07:11:55 PM
Is light a wave or a particle?
what is a photon and what is a wave to you ?
the wave is by no mean the speed at whitch a photon is travelling.
the wave of a photon is the frequency at whitch the photon oscillate.
let's Wikify...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Copied from that page...
The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black body radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light are quantized. Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, further experiments proved Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized; the quanta of light are photons.
Wikification to the 2nd power...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
Also copied from that page...
A wave is a disturbance that propagates through space and time, usually with transference of energy. A mechanical wave is that which propagates through a medium due to the restoring forces it produces upon deformation. There also exist waves capable of traveling through vacuum, including electromagnetic radiation and probably[1] gravitational radiation. Waves travel and transfer energy from one point to another, often with little or no permanent displacement of the particles of the medium (that is, with little or no associated mass transport); they consist instead of oscillations around almost fixed locations.
and your point is ?
i asked what they were to you.
not to paste me what some else said they were.
I'm just answering your questions to the best of my ability. I'm not sure what you are getting at either, that's my point. Sort of...
Quote from: HeairBear on June 08, 2009, 11:25:26 PM
I'm just answering your questions to the best of my ability. I'm not sure what you are getting at either, that's my point. Sort of...
nevermind, probably just an other assumption i was making because of your question here:
Quote from: HeairBear on June 08, 2009, 07:11:55 PM
Is light a wave or a particle?
i was thinking that you knew someting i was not aware of by asking that question after your comment on light speed.
note that the speed of light and the possibility of going faster then it are 2 different things.
the possibility of going faster then light does not imply that the speed of light is not approximately 300,000 km per second under normal circumstances.
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 14, 2009, 02:44:39 PM
Hydrogen is a fuel. Water on the other hand is only currently a source of fuel. And, as long as it takes more energy to to dissociate water than is returned on combustion this will forever remain so.
You have to consider that the moment anyone actually achieves (beyond doubt) a self-sustaining closed loop hydroxy on-demand system, that this in itself will constitute Over-Unity.
Farrah, I think you are making the assumption that no water will be consumed and making that assumption based on your obvious chemistry background and the assumption that what you were taught was correct or applied to this particular electrolysis method.
The system would not be a closed system and thermodynamics would not apply since water is consumed and is the fuel source.
The atomic energy contained in water is so vast that you simply could not measure the minute losses and so science has assumed there are none, this however is wrong.
Also it is worth pointing out that the bolt is NOT connected to the crows foot and is only acting like an earth ground. Since the source wire is connected to a AV plug, this is how Stiffler knows whether it is H or O that is being produced.
Since the ground plane floats due to it's low mass, I would assume that is the reason that the much stronger oxygen atom does not disassociate. Add more power, higher frequency or attach the bolt to a better ground and oxygen would surely evolve.
AC electrolysis is nothing new and has nothing to do with Faraday. (The scientist, not the smart poster on this forum)
As always, Koodos to Dr. Stiffler. He is teaching "spatial coherence" How the crows foot coheres to the ground plane and how the weak link in the chain (water) is broken with high frequency and high voltage.
Stiffler could have probably just as easily wrapped a small coil around the tube instead of the ground plane bolt and achieved the same effect with opposite polarity on the coil. I have seen true single wire electrolysis before without the bolt and it just takes more power or higher frequency to produce particle oscillation. Due to hysteresis the water cannot react fast enough and it becomes its own ground near the electrodes.
Hysteresis is a huge factor and an important one if you are to understand OU electrolysis better. Voltage is equal to pressure and pressure is acceleration. Example - We can send a lot more current down a transmission line if we send it at high voltage (speed) and we can spray water a lot farther if it is at high pressure (high voltage) but we can also transfer a larger quantity of more water if we have a larger diameter pipe (current or amperage)
An earlier comment regarding the speed of an electron through water is an important one. Without a proper impedance match, the energy is reflected or it appears that some sort of slippage takes place depending on how the mismatch occurs.
Both Meyer and Puharich matched the impedance to the water which is quite dynamic as the gas evolves and is the reason Meyer went from a high current low voltage pulse (polarization) stepping up to high voltage low current pulse - particle oscillation or as Meyer termed it "electron bounce phenoninom"
And lastly in regard to your first post regarding electrodes, you made the assumption that there are always two electrodes. Meyer covered the subject from A-Z and there were at times three electrodes and at times only one with an electromagnetic coupling or a photon injection. These too should be considered electrodes in attempting to describe a complex bond cleave that has nothing to do with Farraday. (Again... The scientist not the smart poster) :-)
Alright! Back on topic with a great counter argument. Thank you quarktoo! I'm not sure about the "Electron Bouncing" part, but, I agree with most of what you posted. I hope Farrah comes back soon, I too have an original Stiffler circuit that I would love to share data with if he or she or anyone for that matter has the ability to do so.
Quote from: HeairBear on June 12, 2009, 11:02:28 AM
Alright! Back on topic with a great counter argument. Thank you quarktoo! I'm not sure about the "Electron Bouncing" part, but, I agree with most of what you posted. I hope Farrah comes back soon, I too have an original Stiffler circuit that I would love to share data with if he or she or anyone for that matter has the ability to do so.
I have the ability and probably already have it but just in case, whip it out. :-)
Not sure about electron bounce? Meyer's exact words from his notes and lectures. If fact, you are not going to beat Faraday until you ripple the DC or use AC. Until then, water is like thick glue and the molecules stick together so become a solid mass. Once you develop gas and resonate the individual molecules, they do not take on their own individual charge and begin to repel each other. (fracture)
The reason that the voltage and frequency needs to vary (burst wave) is to penetrate to different depths into the water.
You can replicate one of Meyer's patents where he points two diodes at the cell so no current flows using all radio shack parts and it demonstrates particle oscillation perfectly.
It is a tiny experiment - fast diodes are a must (4us) 1n914 signal type and an audio transformer and two 890uf chokes. Anything slower and it will not work - particle oscillation.
Seems I heard some time back, that water in free fall changes the structure of the bond from 109 deg to 104 deg or so thereby changing it from dipole to bipolar momentarily...?
Old experiment shows water stream being pulled toward static electric source, seems to me this would be the optimum time to break the bond ???
I will be experimenting in this direction soon...?
Quote from: llewgnal on June 12, 2009, 05:28:22 PM
Seems I heard some time back, that water in free fall changes the structure of the bond from 109 deg to 104 deg or so thereby changing it from dipole to bipolar momentarily...?
Old experiment shows water stream being pulled toward static electric source, seems to me this would be the optimum time to break the bond ???
I will be experimenting in this direction soon...?
I think you want to go from 104 to 109.28.
Perhaps you will find this interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY1eyLEo8_A
QuoteAnd lastly in regard to your first post regarding electrodes, you made the assumption that there are always two electrodes. Meyer covered the subject from A-Z and there were at times three electrodes and at times only one with an electromagnetic coupling or a photon injection.
I was talking about electrodes in a water bath - dissociating the liqiud water molecule. Nowhere have I seen or read of Meyer using more than two electrodes in water... unless you are talking about multiple cells as in his multitube set up. Where does Meyer cover this from A-Z??
QuoteHysteresis is a huge factor and an important one if you are to understand OU electrolysis better. Voltage is equal to pressure and pressure is acceleration. Example - We can send a lot more current down a transmission line if we send it at high voltage (speed) and we can spray water a lot farther if it is at high pressure (high voltage) but we can also transfer a larger quantity of more water if we have a larger diameter pipe (current or amperage)
I do not see the point of this paragragh or what you are trying to say... or rather what its relevance to electrolysis is.
It's all very well saying that voltage pulls the water molecule apart, but what is the balanced chemical equation to back up such a statement? Meyer certainly never provided one. And how do you get gases evolved from pulling the water molecule apart if no charges are exchanged??
Supposedly dissociating the water molecule to produce H2 and O2, using voltage without current flow brings up much more questions than it answers.
Post deleted.
Quarktoo
Quote>
All I have to offer is my first hand experience and this is not my first day on the job.<End quote
''Actual experience" carries a lot more weight than hypothetical thinking
Thank you
Chet
Post deleted.
A lot of suddenly deleted posts here... hope I didn't miss anything too important!
Hey Farrah! Your back! Did you bring a finished replication of anything with you this time? Oh well, back to the bench! Or lab, kitchen, what ever it is we use for our brain toys. Welcome back! Newbie should be right behind me with a post in... 3, 2, 1....
I've got a lot going on at present, as I'm experimenting with a few ideas all at the same time to see if I can find a common denominator that links them all. All include elements of electromagnetic induction.
Just wondering if anyone has actually built, and has a working Dave Lawton D14 PWM.
I ask as I've never been able to reproduce the results Lawton claimed with the bifilar coil included, whereby he powered a light bulb via a rectifier cct added across the cell - no success at any frequency, even though I have a perfectly working D14.
Has anyone else ever replicated this experiment?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/D14.pdf
Here's a Naudin CF replication. Seems like a pretty valid attempt.
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/2003/replicationjln.htm
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 12, 2009, 08:08:08 PM
It's all very well saying that voltage pulls the water molecule apart, but what is the balanced chemical equation to back up such a statement? Meyer certainly never provided one. And how do you get gases evolved from pulling the water molecule apart if no charges are exchanged??
They all think that the light bulb "burns off" the electrons in the electron extraction circuit and what comes out the tail pipe is some water that is missing electrons (or magically the electrons reappear again from somewhere even though they destroyed them previously with a light bulb). In fact light bulbs don't do such a thing and neither do resistors.
And assuming the electrons go missing (which is stupid), nope, they still don't have a balanced equation with the missing electrons regardless. Maybe they release toxic anti-water out the tail pipe (water with missing electrons that were "burnt off by a light bulb") and that's how stan died.. from "anti-water poisoning" in his lungs.
So basically the key item people need to explain (ask the right questions, idiots) is how electrons go missing. They don't go missing in the light bulb, because light bulbs don't burn electrons off. A light bulb is just a resistor that slows electrons down. No one has answered the "right questions" and we are back to arguing with crackpots and quacktards.
Yes, a balanced chemical equation is needed. But that is hard mind work. And quacktards and crackpots don't want to do hard mind work because they don't have minds. Just lots of crack.
OK, Farah. I need your help here to help explain what can happen and the equation to define it. I can't find any real answers so far.
Using a longer tube set style cell to electrolyze water in the normal Faraday fashion with a minimal current applied, but, enough to produce a small amount of gasses. Assuming the voltage potential is great enough to positively ionize both hydrogen and oxygen atoms as the gas bubbles rise up through the tubes. We now have both elements in an unstable state and both are positive in charge repelling each other keeping them from reforming back into water. These bubbles also have a tendency to remain in the water much like a cloudy foam and will recirculate through the tubes if conditions are right.
Here is my question/s... What happens to the unstable atoms in the water? Positive ions are in fact atoms with missing electrons, are they not? Do they not seek out, or, are very attracted to anything that can fill the void to stabilize the atom? Can the ions take electrons from a water molecule if it is polarized to 109°? The most I have found on these matters pertains to oxygen in the positive ion state which is categorized as a super oxidant or something along those lines.
Any opinions, equations, or rants are welcome.
solid water ice is the answer it doesnt change resonance or capacitance
Let's meet Mr keely,
The Dissociation of Water.
Frequency of Hydrogen- 42,800 / 6562.79 (Hydrogen) = 6.5216.
Frequency of Oxygen- 42,800 / 7775.43 (Oxygen) = 5.5045.
(Note: Dissociation occurs at about 5.5 and 6.5 times the frequency of hydrogen and oxygen).
"He (Keely) discovered that it is impossible to use the (A)ether in any way other that as a medium for other forces. These forces have to do with the polar stream of the earth and are tuned to by Keely's system of "sympathetic vibration" (i.e. by resonance of certain harmonic chords). In following a course of research in resonance phenomena, Keely achieved a very advanced understanding of the Universe"...
John Ernst Worrell Keely (September 3, 1827 - November 18, 1898) was a US inventor from Philadelphia who invented the "Keely Motor". In the timeline of invention, he developed an induction resonance motion motor which used "etheric technology". Keely was the discoverer of Sympathetic Vibratory Physics.
"...it is time that those interested in his schemes should make themselves acquainted with the fundamental laws and facts of accepted physics, and they will then find that what they consider mysteries of inscrutable power are in plain English nothing more nor less than interesting experiments in acoustics and mechanics."
â€" Russell Thayer, Lippincott magazine, 1887 - "Our Monthly Gossip", pages 602-603
{{quotation|All of Keely's system revolves around the introduction of a specific, pure, tightly controlled, complex waveform into a resonating cavity.That, believe it or not, is the be all and end all of Keely's technology.|KeelyTech/Hans von Lieven Skeptics allege fraud on a grand scale, citing hidden pipes and other aparatus found in the walls and basement of Keely's home after his death.
Contents [hide]
1 Introduction
2 Biography
3 Death and afterwards
4 Quotes
5 Modern research
5.1 Water disassociation
5.1.1 Exploding water with 42712.2Hz
5.1.2 Verification of frequency to produce etheric force from water?
5.2 Keely connections
5.2.1 Modern science and Keely
5.2.2 Magnetic Resonance Amplifier
5.2.3 Joe Cell
5.2.4 3 6 9
6 Keely and Anti-gravity
6.1 Cavitation, Implosion, Water Hammer Effect
6.1.1 Callum Coats
6.2 Home-grown sine-wave experiments for software musicians
7 Related pages
8 Skeptics
9 External links and references
10 See also
Introduction
A man who appears to have gone a long way to unlocking the secrets of sound was John Ernst Worrell Keely of Philadelphia (1827-1898). He spent 50 years developing and refining a wide variety of devices that used ‘sympathetic vibratory force’ or ‘etheric force’ to levitate objects, spin large wheels, power engines, and disintegrate rock. He performed many convincing demonstrations in his laboratory for scientists and other interested observers. He attempted to put his apparatus into commercial production, but this was hampered by the fact that it had to be tuned to the bodily vibrations of the operator and also to the surroundings.
Biography
"Unfortunately the history books took the Scientific American debunking as fact and John Keely has been portrayed historically as a fraud and a conman, those who have any inkling of physics who have studied what remains of his work, know these reports to be mostly erroneous."
â€" Jerry Decker, KeelyNet.com
John Keely was orphaned in early childhood and he was raised by his grandparents. Before he entered into science, he worked as an orchestra leader, a carpenter, a circus performer, and as a mechanic. In 1872, Keely announced that he had discovered a principle for power production based on the musical vibrations of tuning forks. He claimed that music could resonate with atoms or with the ether. With other engineers and investors, he founded Keely Motor Company in New York and attracted investment of $10.000 that he used to build his machine. Most of this came from businessmen in New York and Philadelphia. On November 10, 1874, Keely gave a demonstration of the motor before a small group of citizens of Philadelphia. In subsequent demonstrations he kept changing the terminology he used, to "vibratory-generator" to a "hydro-pneumatic-pulsating-vacu-engine" to "quadruple negative harmonics". His most enthusiastic supporter was a wealthy widow Clara Jessup Bloomfield-Moore. Scientists investigated his machine that appeared to run on air and water, though Keely endeavored to avoid this.
Keely built several devices to manipulate gravity. One of them was the "sympathetic transmitter", a copper globe about one foot (30 cm) in diameter, containing a Chladni plate and various metal tubes, whose position could be adjusted by means of a knob. The globe was held by a metal stand, around the base of which projected small metal rods a few inches long, of different sizes and lengths, which vibrated like tuning forks when twanged by the fingers. In one experiment, the transmitter was connected by a wire made of gold, platinum, and silver to the top of a water-filled glass jar. When the right chord was sounded on the strings of a zither, metal balls, weighing 2 pounds (0.9 kg), rose from the bottom of the jar until they hit the metal cap, and remained there until a different note was played which caused them to sink again.
Keely claimed to catalyze the vibratory force necessary to make objects move using a variety of musical instruments, including trumpets, horns, harmonicas, fiddles, and zithers, and could even operate the equipment just by whistling. To maintain interest, Keely organized regular public demonstrations. He often used musical instruments to activate his machines, a "vibratory engine" connected to "liberator" made of brass wires, tubes and tuning forks. Witnesses relate how, after further experimentation, Keely was able to make heavy steel balls move in the air by simply playing on a kind of mouth organ. Using a combination of transmitter, connecting cord, and musical instrument, he was able to make a 3.6-kg model of an airship rise into the air, descend, or hover with a motion ‘as gentle as that of thistledown’. He was also able to lift extremely heavy weights by connecting them to vibratory appliances worn on his person; several people witnessed him levitate and move a 3-tonne cast-iron sphere in this way, and also make it heavier so that it sank into the ground as if into mud.
He accompanied his exhibition with eloquent recitals of his theories. Keely claimed that the machine could have number of economic benefits but when his investors demanded that he would create a marketable product, he refused and said that he needed to do more experiments. When Broomfield-Moore suggested that he could cooperate with Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla, he again refused. For the 27 years Keely was running his company, he faced legal problems, accusations of fraud and even occasional claim of sorcery and involvement of occultism. In 1890 Keely pronounced that he was on the verge of a breakthrough. The "liberator" would disintegrate air and release an etheric force that could convert one quart (1 L) of water to enough power to "send a train of cars from Philadelphia to San Francisco".
Death and afterwards
John Keely died in November 18 1898 when he was hit by a streetcar. After Keely's death, journalists and engineers went to his laboratory to investigate his machines; Keely's supporters had already appropriated most of them, though they failed to make them work. Engineer Alexander Scott and Clarence Moore, son of Clara Bloomfield-Moore, examined the building. Inside the walls they found pipes linked to a water motor two floors below the laboratory. It is unknown how this fit into his research. In the basement there was a three-ton sphere of compressed air that ran the machines through hidden air pressure tubes.
Becuase of this discovery, some have claimed that Keely did not play an instrument to set up sympathetic vibration but to signal to a confederate in another part of the building when to turn on or off the compressed air that supposedly powered his ‘fraudulent’ devices. Keely continued to make more research for his machine and built new models. He did all experimentation himself. Some skeptics and many pseudoskeptics claim that it was part of a scheme to deceive and that Keely ran the machines through hidden air pressure tubes. Model of Keely's engine is in the collection of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Keely's supporters continue to claim that he was framed.
Quotes
There is no dividing of matter and force into two distinct terms, as they both are one. Force is liberated matter. Matter is force in bondage. Matter is bound up energy and energy is liberated matter.
â€" Keely, 1893 (Dale Pond, 1996, p.90)
Modern research
Some believe that the research of Nathan Stubblefield and his Earth battery system utilizing copper rods and iron rods. One could sink them in, probably, even at best, utilize Stephan Reiss's method for water-production by drilling very deep into the rock to hit fresh water - so Keely connected with Stubblefield, and Reiss hinted at equals battery-power from the earth's magnetic field using the earth-battery or magnetic induction amplifier of stubblefield, then this can be used for voice transmission over long distances, and also then a specific shape vibrated and driven into the ground, for water-receival.
Water disassociation
SVPVRIL Water Disassociation page - Keely's Dissociation of Water - General Description of Apparatus and Demonstrations
(from Keely's physics):
The Dissociation of Water.
Frequency of Hydrogen- 42,800 / 6562.79 (Hydrogen) = 6.5216.
Frequency of Oxygen- 42,800 / 7775.43 (Oxygen) = 5.5045.
(Note: Dissociation occurs at about 5.5 and 6.5 times the frequency of hydrogen and oxygen).
"He (Keely) discovered that it is impossible to use the (A)ether in any way other that as a medium for other forces. These forces have to do with the polar stream of the earth and are tuned to by Keely's system of "sympathetic vibration" (i.e. by resonance of certain harmonic chords). In following a course of research in resonance phenomena, Keely achieved a very advanced understanding of the Universe"...
Exploding water with 42712.2Hz
Post From JoesCell2 (this is the opinion of a private person):
Keely found that water will explode at a frequency of 42,712.2 Hz. ... did it with a Quartz Bowl....Think Quartz and how symmetry applies to magnets because that is how quartz crystals are formed, via symmetry. The 42,712.2Hz was applied to a quartz bowl with distilled water at which time it EXPLODED and disappeared. After this experiment Keely began studing geometric shapes that hold these specialized frequencies which can manipulate matter and the mind. So the power of the mind possibly can be realized by the special shapes that Keely discovered from special frequencies. if you know how this works you wouldnt even need a Joe Cell to make power and after a while not even the special shapes because you could use your voice. i will add that if you want your joe cells to work better place it on a 10 or 12 point tesseract made on copper foil. You can get it at lowes home improvement in their building materials section.
Verification of frequency to produce etheric force from water?
A recent (1965) possible verification of the frequency Keely used to dissociate water into etheric force was related to me by a scientist when we were discussing certain aspects of free energy. He wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but his name is on file. I have no other verification of this experiment, however I believe it merits telling. The scientist, I shall call him Dr. X, was doing experiments with ultrasonic sound in a column of water. The object of the experiments was to devise a means of separating various densities of materials by injecting them into a column of water which was subjected to an ultrasonic standing wave vibration. The experimental setup is sketched in Figure 3-3 (for BBS considerations a description follows). A Barium Titanate ultrasonic transducer was fixed to the bottom of a quartz tube which was closed at the bottom and open at the top. Pure water was poured into the tube and the water column was "tuned" so that a standing wave was produced at 40,000 CPS (cycles per second). The transducer was powered by a 700 Watt power amplifier which was driven by an ultrasonic frequency generator. Because of the large amount of power put into the column of water a certain amount of evaporation took place at a constant rate when the transducer was energized. Therefore, to maintain a standing wave in the water column a feedback device caused the frequency to be raised as the water evaporated and the temperature changed. As a test, Dr. X decided to run through the experiment with only water in the tube to ensure that a standing wave was maintained as the water evaporated and the frequency rose higher and higher. When the experiment was started everything worked beautifully. Dr. X took periodic readings of his instrumentation and was assured that the standing wave was being maintained. Suddenly, with no warning whatever the water disappeared from the open quartz tube. He looked up thinking to see the water splashed on the ceiling when to his amazement a clean hole went right through the ceiling. The hole was the same size as the inside of the quartz tube. Further investigation showed the hole continued on through the roof also! Dr. X checked his notebook and found the last frequency entry to be 41,300 CPS. It was shortly after this that the water disappeared. Because of the time interval between the last reading and the disappearing water, the frequency sent to the transducer was higher than the last reading and Dr. X said it could well have been very close to 42,800 CPS, the Keely dissociation frequency. This obviously dangerous event caused Dr. X to dismantle the equipment and try some other approach to his problem. This experiment points the way to the use of our modern technology in conjunction with Keely's laws of dissociation to change matter into energy without the use of radioactive materials or extremely expensive atomic accelerators."
Keely connections
Modern science and Keely
Keely reported disintegration of mass with standing waves (which is now a commercial process),
Keely reported producing light in water (what is now termed sonoluminescence/triboluminescence),
Keely reported acoustic levitation (verified by NASA and others) though Keely went FAR BEYOND this brute force technique,
Keely reported geometries that could intensify sound pressures without adding additional energy (recently patented and in use by MacroSonics),
Keely reported cold in the presence of certain 'orders of vibration' (now patented as an acoustic refrigration and cooling system),
Keely reported that sound could be used to heal the body but went further saying the 'convolutions of the brain' were knotted or restricted, resulting in all manner of physical problems when the nerve energy was restricted, this is still unproven as modern medical researchers work on the EFFECT rather than the controller (CAUSE) of the brain, that will change as more people begin to experiment in this area.
Magnetic Resonance Amplifier
With low-level ultrasonic input signals, the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA) produces usable direct current power at levels above unity. This circuit is based upon the work and theories of John Ernst Worrell Keely, and is offered into the public domain in his memory.
(from [rexresearch mra article]
Joe Cell
from JoesCell2: Keely's dynasphere, principles, the same.
"Tenuous matter and energy are both attracted to the sphere just as other subatomic matter and energy are radiating from it." The
radiating electrical field of the Joe cell becomes coherent with the rings as the sound in the dynasphere.-Second step. This device has been referred to as a "living entity" by Keely a number of times. It becomes a living, breathing entity when it:
establishes a neutral center;
establishes a coincident or sympathetic field about itself;
the device begins to act and react (breathe) to its neutral self
NOTICE
These three things are the three stages of the Joe cell.
As the amplification takes place the space/time begins to take on a stressed condition (pumping a scalar or phase conjugate wave as Bearden would say).
dynasphere, and-"Scalar current arises by abruptly bucking magnetic fields onto a caduceus wound or a bifilar wound coil". It is as if the abruptly bucking magnetic field manifested a pair production of two macroscopic, oppositely rotating, displacement virtual current vortices in the zero point energy.' These vacuum energy vortices are stabilized and supported by the two symmetric windings. Bedini described using this method in his "gravity field generator" where he not only reported "cold conduction" but also a weight change in the apparatus as well. Roz.
3 6 9
John Keely, wrote that the vibrations of "thirds, sixths, and ninths, were extraordinarily powerful." In fact, he proved the "vibratory antagonistic thirds was thousands of times more forceful in separating hydrogen from oxygen in water than heat." In his "Formula of Aqueous Disintegration" he wrote that, "molecular dissociation or disintegration of both simple and compound elements, whether gaseous or solid, a stream of vibratory antagonistic thirds, sixths, or ninths, on their chord mass will compel progressive subdivisions. In the disintegration of water the instrument is set on thirds, sixths, and ninths, to get the best effects." aqua1.txt from keelynet.com
Note well the Tesla quote about 3-6-9
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe. -Nikola Tesla
Keely and Anti-gravity
Speculation on Keely and his method of anti-gravity focuses on 2 areas.
For Thrust (or levitation)
An artificial neutral center is created which causes the natural neutral center of the test mass to be drawn towards the artificial center with an attraction proportional to the energy flowing through the artificial neutral center.:For Weight Increase or aggregation of additional mass:When the artificial neutral center is superposed onto the natural center, the aether flows increase proportionate to the entraining amplitudes flowing through the artificial neutral center thus causing an increase in weight and a gradual INCREASE in the mass density.
For Levitation
A wire or ring is placed around the object. The ring is fed with a frequency that resonates with the neutral center of the mass. Such a resonance, properly directed can cause what Keely calls "high vortex action" to decrease or increase the aether flow through the mass neutral center. This flow creates the equivalent of a soliton, or a self-contained standing wave' with extremely high rotational velocities on the perimeter of the mass. Such a flow directly controls the "weight" of the mass by exceeding the Flotte 'Z' axis or better stated, by creating a higher potential in the mass aggregate than that of the surrounding media for ejection of the mass to one more favorable to its energetic level.
Keely also reported a cooling effect of the local air when the anti-grav effect was in operation (likely an ion wind).
Cavitation, Implosion, Water Hammer Effect
There is a connection between Viktor Schauberger's biological vacuum, and Keely's Neutral. Dale Pond has studied this up to a point.
Viktor Schauberger (or Callum Coats, translating Viktor's work) has referred to Keely a few times in his writings.
About a century ago, John Worrell Keely figured out how to run a motor on the power of cavitation or implosion, while alternately compressing and expanding water. He harnessed that we dismiss as nuisance- the water hammer- in water pipes. Dale Pond, researcher of Keely's physics, says that Keely's Hydro-Vacuo motor created a water hammer shock wave which when synchronized with the wave's echo, "results in Amplitude Additive Synthesis, a process which tremendously increased energy accumulations in quick order." Pond warns that this resonance amplification is similar to the process, which breaks wine glasses. from http://www.emfsafe.com/implosion/water.htm
A valve closing in 1.5 sec. or less depending upon valve size and system conditions, causes an abrupt stoppage of flow. The pressure spike(acoustic wave)created at rapid valve closure can be high as five(5) times the system working pressure. from > http://www.plastomatic.com/water-hammer.html
Dale Pond, in the SVP basics video, claims that John Worrell Keely's etheric forces and Neutral Center, have a lot to do with cavitation, or implosion, or the water-hammer effect. This water-hammer-effect is what they try and NOT do in normal engineering. same with vibration, again.
Callum Coats
in Living Energies, Callum Coats prints these estimates by Keely:
Molecular Vibrations 100,000,000 per second
Inter-molecular vibrations 300,000,000 per second
Atomic Vibrations 900,000,000 per second
Inter-atomic Vibrations 2,700,000,000 per second
Aetheric Vibrations 8,100,000,000 per second
Inter-aetheric Vibrations at 24,300,000,000 per second
Home-grown sine-wave experiments for software musicians
Punch in Keely frequencies 620hz, 630hz and 12,000hz, run through oscilloscope and watch.
Related pages
Klimator spinning wavy plate generating vortical movement of medium, generating cold or warm air = Viktor Schauberger related airconditionin device.
Skeptics
Keely, the Monumental Fraud of the Century! - Ord Hume says, "Of all the perpetual motion frauds the story of John W. Keely's carefully planned deception and the manner in which the Keely Motor Company defrauded people of large sums of money must rank supreme." (NuScam.com)
The Keely Motor Company - Documentary reveals that "the walls, ceilings and even apparently solid beams were found to have hidden pipework. The evidence of fraud on a grand scale was obvious and undeniable." (IHUP.edu)
External links and references
KeelyTech/Hans von Lieven's analysis of John Keely
G
Web Sites on John Keely
via Google Search
G
Image Images of John Keely
via Google Image
G
News News of John Keely
via Google News
G
groups Newsgroups with John Keely
via Google Groups
SVPVRIL Water Disassociation page - Keely's Dissociation of Water - General Description of Apparatus and Demonstrations
John Worrell Keely excerpts
Historical Articles on John W. Keely compiled by Dale Pond. Excellent!
Jerry Decker's Anti-gravity Correlations (Schauberger,Keely,Leedskalnin,Tesla,Schappeller,Carr,Thomas Townsend Brown,Searl) http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/deckcorr.htm
Dale Pond, Sympathetic Vibratory Physics.
Dale Pond, It's a musical universe after all!, University of Science and Philosophy quarterly magazine, Winter 2000 Edition ; The Cosmic Light (November, 1999) [Frank.Germano.com]
Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation.
Quote from: lltfdaniel1 on September 13, 2009, 06:19:49 AM
Let's meet Mr keely,
Do you really have to copy and paste an article right into the forum? People can read the website link. Supposedly Keely did use some false walls and false floors with compressed air or something similar to run his machines but since it was a long time ago, no one could prove it either way. Kind of like trying to prove Jesus.
hi everyone good day ;D
have a look at this, this is amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRz0a2qiCtc&feature=related
I would like to know if the energy of ionization of the individual hydrogen atoms is less than breaking the electrostatic or polarized bonding of the water molecule. I believe that the ionization of an atom is more frequency dependent than intensity dependent and needs to match the photon frequency emitted when an electron goes from an inner valence shell to an outer valence shell. Seeing as hydrogen has no outer valence shell the frequency of the hydrogen element must be the standing wave frequency associated with a 1s atomic orbital. This would be the intrinsic mode of vibration of the electron itself and is probably worth investigation. It may have been determined in the Bohr electron model already. The photon aborption of the hydrogen atom at ground state would immediately excite the electron into a valence band as there are no other electron orbitals associated with the Hydrogen atom where an excited electron can reside.
Quote from: Loner on February 05, 2010, 01:20:33 AM
Tito - Amazing is correct. Do you have any other info?
If that HV and decent current, OK. If that's very current HV, WOW!
I will watch for anything giving info on that setup....
i'm afraid no info anymore, just found it in youtube and put it here so that you can watch it. ;D
If the magnet serves to guide the free electrons disassociated from the individual hydrogen atoms so that they do not return to the hydrogen then a plasmic form of water is created. The swirling of the liberated gas reminds me of a video in which a plasma was created and a permanent magnet was lowered into the manmade lightning. The lightning started swirling.
The ionization frequency of atomic hydrogen imposed between two emitters into the fluid. Magnetic field to induce electron drift in the fluid. Liberation of ionized hydrogen atoms into the gas state.
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on February 06, 2010, 07:07:51 AM
i'm afraid no info anymore, just found it in youtube and put it here so that you can watch it. ;D
try to find magnetohydrodynamic rotation in internet, here an example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trvd2XOIeXY
how to:
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/SimpleMHD
then put a speaker magnet and you have much more effect
Here's an idea, postulation, theory ;)
a magnetic field and electricity are one and the same, electricity is the monopole of a magnetic field, hence magnatricity
if you spin a copper winding (conductor) in a magnetic field it steals electrons from the magnet and you have electricity
it takes a lot of force to steal (rip) the electron from the magnet, if you could release the electrons from a simple magnet that sits on your desk all at once the power would fry you
back to the subject at hand, oxygen is paramagnetic hydrogen is diamagnetic
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on February 04, 2010, 11:59:04 PM
hi everyone good day ;D
have a look at this, this is amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRz0a2qiCtc&feature=related
The effect is something similar with this one, is it not ? ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2f6RD1hT6Q&feature=fvsr
hello
after studying for few months i think this is what will make as all happy
here are Meyer, Eccles and Tay-Hee Han mixed all together to make water decomposition most efficient
remember what Meyer said in hes video in Switzerland
http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=-2810004729743692578&ei=76Z2S7r5B4Ss2ALh4LnUBw&q=stanley+meyer+switzerland&hl=pl&view=3#
9:30-13:00
he energize water , water takes charge , then he elongate the molecules and they split
and that what i think it suppose to do
both pair of electrodes 1 2 and 3 4 are OUTSIDE the CELL wich is made out of plexi glass which has high dielectric strenght 30kv/mm so it sould be at least 2mm thick and spaced apart 2 mm
1 -60kv
2 +60kv
3 and 4 are 40kv ac 5khz to 50khz but 4 is 180 degrease out off phase
cheers from poland
wojsciech
Quote from: Farrah Day on March 18, 2009, 09:08:53 AM
Incidentally for anyone that doesn't know - and I didn't - Stiffler was a forum moderator at one time. I found a Stiffler thread on this site of some 268 pages, over 2600 replies and which has been viewed over 140,000 times. However, it seems he was plagued by idiots and low-lives from start to finish, and I guess he eventually decided it wasn't worth the hassle to continue posting here - frankly it's not hard to imagine how he felt!
and yet now it's you filling that same role over @ energeticforum.com... how long till he decides you aren't worth the hassle and stops posting there? oh wait... you already caused that to happen!! congrats! ::) it's funny reading your first post in this thread knowing that you had not and STILL have not built a working SEC yet seem to know all about them. and you accuse the good doc of assumption... ::) are you still having trouble with those 15 components?
once again while others are demonstrating, you are still talking...
I think it is ingenious using electromagnetic wave energy to disassociate water. The electric field necessary to perform the work arises from creating standing waves in the water. The currents are then generated between nodes of the standing waves. There are no electrodes to degrade or workforce needed to be overcome to liberate free electrons that travel through a loop circuit. I worked with electrocoagulation units that would use sacraficial anodes which would quickly form insulating layers of oxides. The current then flowing from less and less surface area until the total active plate area diminished to a tiny fraction of the original reactive surface. Increasing voltage would only increase the current in this tiny area with no gain in ions supplied to the solution just heating of the bulk severe pitting of the electrodes and deposition of oxides on the electrodes that were impossible to remove economically. Even went to the effort of building a cell that operated using ultrasonic stimulation of the electrode. The final design incorporated a high velocity supply of the fluid to be coagulated that would scour the sacraficial anode of the oxides as they formed. An indexing electrode would drill it's way through the sacraficial anode rod while the solution to be coagulated was forced at high pressure out of the end of the indexing electrode. The fluid then traveling between the boring electrode and the sacraficial rod. It got the job done but was complex and suffered from intensive energy use to support the highpressures needed to provide suffiecient velocity in the gap between the boring head and the rod to scour the anode of the insulating oxides. All cells suffer from the loss of active surface area and cheap ones never had it to begin with. Creating the currents right in the solution without use of electrodes is a pretty neat idea.
Quote from: Dave45 on September 13, 2009, 12:10:01 AM
solid water ice is the answer it doesnt change resonance or capacitance
Redacted, answer was to obvoius ...
Also coiling a few loops of copper wire and align the mag harmonics would not hurt any project. Seems this tunes the specific surfaces to have harmonics that would be sync'd.