A challenge to Bob Boyce , if anybody can get in contact with him , show him this video and tell him to lay the ''Myth'' to rest .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF4zuqWEoI0
Quote from: dankie on May 05, 2009, 11:52:21 AM
A challenge to Bob Boyce , if anybody can get in contact with him , show him this video and tell him to lay the ''Myth'' to rest .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF4zuqWEoI0
Why would he bother?
Bob doesn't need to prove anything. Build his device for yourself, a tricky build,
and prove it for yourself. Here's how:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf
But don't imagine that Bob is going to waste time justifying himself.
Paul.
Plz ... Dont you think we didnt read that already . If Bob Boyce doesnt face up to the challenge , he and his work will be discredited .
Theres been alot of people trying to replicate this , people that know alot more than you do . Not just people who link stuff and think they have it all figured out .
Fact is that the Bob Boyce cell doesnt work , theres been alot of $$ spent ,by many different people with ''experience'' in related fields .
I`ve seen ausse and other people hammer it out for a year now , trying everything , re building , re-tuning ... My buddy Electrojolt can transmit electrical power through the air but cant make a Bob Boyce circuit work .
Its safe to say that the Bob Boyce design was not ready for release , its not really a replication , its a whole re-engineering adventure .
Its probably a CIA hackjob IMO . Or he wanted some attention for his product ''The Cell''
Quote from: dankie on May 05, 2009, 12:15:02 PM
Its safe to say that the Bob Boyce design was not ready for release , its not really a replication , its a whole re-engineering adventure .
His technology MUST be built to the tolerances that he specifies. How many people
can arrange 101 separate cells with the plates accurate to within a thou? The problem
is outstandingly difficult, and if this is not achieved, the standing wave will not have
nulls at the point of the plates, and the water will not fracture.
There has been soooooo much testing by ausse , plates ESPECIALLY .
What makes no sense to me is how Bob can understand this science yet cant properly release a 555 circuit to the public that doesnt have the same old ghost in the circuit . And he realized that like 1 year after ... Once everybody had already purchased his first version and told him about it ...
His alternator story also makes no sense @ all . If its so hard to tune to see some added results than how could ''pure luck'' make it happen ... Odds are not in his favor .
Quote from: dankie on May 05, 2009, 12:41:13 PM
If its so hard to tune to see some added results than how could ''pure luck'' make it happen ... Odds are not in his favor .
There is no luck in his science.
I doubt that there are six people in the world who understand the principles behind his work. It is outstandingly advanced, and anyone who does not FULLY understand why his circuit must work will have absolutely no chance building it.
It is a bit like watching people struggling to build a two man glider, succeeding eventually, and then complaining that they are having trouble to replicate an F16.
Bob Boyce is one of the most honorable men, with the highest degree of integrity that I have had the pleasure to meet and interact with.
He is "constantly" experimenting and working to improve results. Some things are public, some are not. But do not question the man's character, please.
Thank you,
Bruce
Dankie you are an arogant biggot. Bob Boyce is infamous for his discovery and you sit demanding that he come on here and explain to you how his stuff works... for what you to sit there read it and say yeah you agree or no you don't... i got news for you HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF HIM!!! Fraud or fantastic you think it matters to him? You sound like a 4 year old wanting to know why the sky is blue having a tanty because no-one is explaining it to you in terms you understand. Grow up. You want to know research... but if you have time for that you and your team must of finish your fantastic replication with your "superior" coil winding abilities... go back to your fabricated bobbins and let people who are getting results continue with their work and stop demanding anything from them... I am sure if bob does read this forum that the demands of the great and powerful Dankie will just whip him up into a debate with you on how his inventions work because that is everyone purpose in life, to make sure you approve of and understand everything... Grow up you child.
To Bob if you are reading/trolling the boards there are many of people out there having difficulty replicating your results and i am sure that they would really enjoy any pointers or tips you have for making their cell work. Due to the complexity and precision required your patients is much appreciated.
Not sure what everyone else thinks, but I found the recently posted video of the Bob Boyce interview endeared me somewhat to Bob.
From what he said there - the fact that his discovery all stemmed from a faulty alternator - you wouldn't imagine that it would be that hard to replicate... would you?
However, from discussions with Bob some years ago now, I never found him to be the most responsive or approachable person in the world. Like many others on these forums, things are OK if you are listening to what he says, eyes wide in awe, while he talks down to you... but as soon as you start asking difficult questions, the defenses come up. From then on the discussions tend to heat up, become aggressive and in my experience Bob inevitably throws a paddy and buggers off for a while.
That is to say, by all means give the guy the respect he deserves, but keep in mind that he is no Einstein and has his flaws - he is certainly not the oracle of knowledge he is made out by some to be.
And given that he has never actually been able to explain scientifically what is occuring in his cells, in my opinion he hardly deserves to be raised to cult status by the ignorant.
Just my thoughts.
Its clear to me as well that mr. Boyce is a fraud.
There is NO person in the world that could replicate his work.
People went from all around the world to meet Bob and spent thousends on trying replicating. Me too tried for a while if his setup did anything extra ordinairy. Thats NOT the case. So, all people who tried, ended up with zero.
Bob doesnt publishe anything helpfull. He doesnt show any video of a working resonance setup. That would be so easy to do, is it.
If you see his interviews, then you see indead a very adorable person.
Well, most frauds are that way.
People: do NOT spent any euro or any other currency on this BB stuff.
Best regards
Steve
I have met Bob in person and all I can say he is one of natures true gentlemen. He has spent years trying to help others.
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on May 06, 2009, 08:49:04 AM
I have met Bob in person and all I can say he is one of natures true gentlemen. He has spent years trying to help others.
Mark
Well, you are not the only person who met Bob.
Question is: have you seen a working setup of Bob, doing much gas for less then an ampere?
Best regards
Steve
Hi
When I was there Bob was helping someone else with their unit. The electronics had a few problems but I witnessed (I filmed it as well but my camera and laptop was later stolen in LA) was running at well below Faradays. If memoery served me correct it was about 1.2watts per litre per hour. This is well short of being able to self run an engine but twice as good as anything I had come across before or since.
Bob has had some hard knocks in his life but as a decent humanatarian I have met none better.
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on May 06, 2009, 09:55:54 AM
Hi
When I was there Bob was helping someone else with their unit. The electronics had a few problems but I witnessed (I filmed it as well but my camera and laptop was later stolen in LA) was running at well below Faradays. If memoery served me correct it was about 1.2watts per litre per hour. This is well short of being able to self run an engine but twice as good as anything I had come across before or since.
Bob has had some hard knocks in his life but as a decent humanatarian I have met none better.
Mark
His equipment generates 100 lpm peak, and will run at
50 lpm comfortably. This will run a smaller car's engine.
I guess that settles it.
I think wise man Farrah Day made a good point ... When you are a low-life like Crazywok , you tend to look up to Bob like a little following sheep and take everything for granted . But then when the real shit comes around and ur stuff isnt working , Bob tends to weasel out of the situation and doesnt seem to be so "humanitarian" ...
Most people who defended Bob here (besides markdansie) dont know wtf they are talking about ... They are mostly wannabees .
Fortunately for me , I have become so good @ filtering off the info from the disinfo that I warned everybody @ my site about this fraud about 5 months ago . Things just didnt seem to add up with the Bob Boyce storyline ...
Yes CrazyEwok , you have been mislead once again ... simple minded sheep these days ... so gullible...
Quote from: Paul-R on May 06, 2009, 10:35:07 AM
His equipment generates 100 lpm peak, and will run at
50 lpm comfortably. This will run a smaller car's engine.
I agree on the amount of hydroxy for running small engines, but .......
I seen Bob having a bb cell in his car. He said on his honest manner, that he didnt run 100% on hydroxy. It was more like a booster.....
Again. Bob Boyce doesnt run his car 100% on hydroxy. He doesnt have a miracle toroid setup. Yes his cell can be more efficient then faraday law, but thats not new these days, is it.
I warned you all here. Others warned you.
Its totally up to you if you wanna listen.......go spent your money on yr girl or boyfriends...mucho better investment..
br
Steve
www.ionizationX.com
lol... low life... right dankie... and if you actually read my post i make no mention of having an interest in his work... asside from the fact he claims OU he is like every other person in the field... Even you beloved Stan ywho you claim should be taken as literal as the dictionary, when mind you alot of people have pointed out mistakes in a lot of aspects of his work in the hydrogen field... You on the other hand have the arogance to throw down a challenge to him to explain himself to you... who do you think you are??? asside from some boy who is yet to learn that no one in this world owes him nothing and yes you will have to figure stuff out on your own... He says "this" works... you can believe him on his word or go do you own thing. If you had something (wait lets make that anything) that worked and you already have been going around helping out people to attempt to get they replicas working and some snott nose child throws down a challenge to you to explain to them whats going on because they tried once and couldn't for the life of them get it to work the same as somethign you designed and built over years (i'm guessing it was years he took, as i said no intence interest). The answer would be no, and if it was yes you are a sad little boy who has more growing up then you realize. He won't answer your demands. Why would he? because you are the great and powerful coil winder dankie!!! lol if you think he cares keep on with your rant... you'll get no where and bored eventually... lol lowlife...
ROFL
What puzzles me, is that there used be a big prize money advert on this website for anyone achieving overunity.
I see a lot of people claiming over unity, but I've heard of no one that has actually claimed or secured this valuable prize... why?
Has Boycie or anyone else ever approached Hartman with thier OU device? Or was the OU prize thing just a gimmick in the first place?
Unless you are obviously creating enormous amounts of gas at mere milliamps or similar, claiming overunity is not that easy, especially given the equipment most of us have at hand - it simply is not accurate enough, especially when dealing with ac signals and pulses.
You would need a good laboratory and some very expensive specialised equipment to be sure you had indeed achieved OU. And given that most people do not even understand Faraday's Laws in the first place, so do not have a control baseline for their experiments, most claims are utter fantasy.
Boyce may well be creating enough gas to run a small car engine, but that is not the issue. The issue is how much power is required to do that - is it on-demand?
It's quite simply really, Boycie would have to achieve enough over unity to be able to compensate for normal ICE losses and then could run a car with his on demand wfc - and with claims of many times OU, I don't see where the problem lies. Once he has achieved OU, he would simply have to scale up the process to provide enough gas to comfortably run the engine at all speeds. If it really is OU, then the alternator would be able to provide enough power to keep the battery charged, ie the system is self-sustaining. Just add water and go!
Of course, scaling down, it does not have to be anything as large as a car engine. It could be a very small generator used to prove OU, or something even smaller. It's not rocket science!
Until someone does this, until someone has a self-running wfc, claims of OU are likely greatly exaggerated - maybe intentially, maybe through sheer ignorance.
Just my thoughts.
Quote from: stevie1001 on May 06, 2009, 12:35:03 PM
I seen Bob having a bb cell in his car. He said on his honest manner, that he didnt run 100% on hydroxy. It was more like a booster.....
Yes. He has several systems, and one of them is based on "brute force electrolysis". It is relatively cheap and easy to build, and would act as a booster.
The system for which he is famous does not work on electrolysis. It "fractures" water along the lines of Stan Meyer and John Worrell Keely, using 48.8 Khz, and octave down on that, and a further octave down as well. I saw a demonstration of a similar technology at the UK Free-Energy Conference last year, and the bubbles came from the bulk of the liquid, and not from the plates.
QuoteYes. He has several systems, and one of them is based on "brute force electrolysis". It is relatively cheap and easy to build, and would act as a booster
I'm also puzzled by this. Why, why, why would someone who claims to have developed super-efficient dissociation of water still, after all this time, be playing around with 'brute force' electrolysis as a booster in his car... it just does not add up!
Who in their right mind would run their car on costly hydrocarbon fuel if they knew how to run it on water... again, it makes no logical sense!
Furthermore, it's all very well to say he 'fractures' water, but what exactly does this mean and exactly how is this achieved at molecular level?
I'm yet to see a balanced chemical equation for the electrochemical reaction that supposedly takes place when 'fracturing' water.
Like it or not, the behaviour of atoms, ions and molecules will conform to a strict set of chemical and physical rules in any given situation.
Hence, there is a logical electrochemical process taking place and a rational explanation... it is not enough to simply accept this happens as if by magic, or worse still, invent some completely implausible explanation that is not based on any true science.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
This is Bob Boyce's cowardly and insulting response .
in his (Aussepom's) video, the way the controller is wired will result in the majority of the toroids pulse energy feeding into the CONTROLLER instead of the cell. It would be impossible for it to work as designed, the way he has it configured!"
Apparently the diagrams from Patrick Kelly (the ones you used) is not correct.
I cannot figure out from his post where we can now find the corrected diagrams but maybe Ash can get hold of it and then you and Ash can give it a try together.
The two of you can assist each other to make sure that no mistakes are made! Wink
In his latest post Bob places a lot of emphasis that the PWM3F'G boards are only a PROOF OF CONCEPT
"Designed to demonstrate, on a TEST BENCH, that this effect that I called resonance reaction is real. Even if it is observed for only a fraction of a second, that is PROOF that there is something to this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer to Bob ,
So you are saying this was never really meant to work , then why did you encourage people to replicate this if it can only barely work for a half-second (not that we ever saw this) , you didnt really think we would be satisfied of this "proof of concept" after spending thousands of dollars and countless hours trying to make it work . Its basicly immoral to let ppl continue on this , you know as well as I do ppl are tight on $ and expect results that will actually SAVE them $... Come on Bob ...
Proof of concept so you can do what ? Market this resonant cell ? Obviously not ... You marketed "the cell" ...
... Or you certainly cant talk about the details because of ppl like Dennis Klein out there who patent everything ( :D ::)... Omg the boogy man) ... Then patent it yourself and start selling the circuit to ppl who wish to make their own cell ...O yeah , you cant , the MIB is stalking you ;D ;D :D ::) So thx man for having that change of heart when you were about to die , you released a frustrating unrelieable "proof of concept" that wasted $ and time off of serious replicators ... Thx alot ...
:D :D :D ;D ;D :o :o :o
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 07, 2009, 10:48:40 AM
I'm also puzzled by this. Why, why, why would someone who claims to have developed super-efficient dissociation of water still, after all this time, be playing around with 'brute force' electrolysis as a booster in his car... it just does not add up!
Who in their right mind would run their car on costly hydrocarbon fuel if they knew how to run it on water... again, it makes no logical sense!
Furthermore, it's all very well to say he 'fractures' water, but what exactly does this mean and exactly how is this achieved at molecular level?
I'm yet to see a balanced chemical equation for the electrochemical reaction that supposedly takes place when 'fracturing' water.
Like it or not, the behaviour of atoms, ions and molecules will conform to a strict set of chemical and physical rules in any given situation.
Hence, there is a logical electrochemical process taking place and a rational explanation... it is not enough to simply accept this happens as if by magic, or worse still, invent some completely implausible explanation that is not based on any true science.
I would sum up your position by saying that you have much to learn.
I do rather get the feeling that old Bob has acquired a cult status that far exceeds his achievements in real terms.
In my mind I see a lot of ignorant fanatics and 'Save the Planet Nuts' placing him high on a pedestal and chanting, 'We love you Bob' and kissing the ground at his feet.
Of course I might be wrong and he maybe the son of God! ;)
Paul
QuoteI would sum up your position by saying that you have much to learn.
I would sum up your position by saying that you have either been brain-washed by Bob or you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'd bet on a bit of both!
The posts bob made here are pretty interresting ,but I dont really care for such things right now . Interresting posts dont make all the wasted $ and time feel any better .
Why promote this "proof of concept" when it cant go farther than that , why promote this to cause further frustration ?
Stop wasting thousands on magical coil and magnet setups and instead drive the innovation of solar and wind to a higher level faster!
Proven tech folks its proven to provide energy from fuel that is free of charge.
Not overunity surely but free energy imho!
lol your condeming him as answering your challenge about explaining himself because he said too much power is being wasted in one aspect of the cell... LOL nice work... would hate to be the person attempting to help you out... "you have too much power going in and out of here... you don't need that much" "WELL THAT JUST MEANS ITS NOT GOING TO WORK AND YOUR A LIAR!!!" lol... and Bob as far as i know, like everyone else, doesn't get a payment or anything whenever anyone builds his cell... He doesn't charge for advise and he post what he thinks is advise on free web boards... so aside from possible mis-leadng info he has wasted nothing of anybodies... they might of wasted their own time on a project without doing the propper research and understanding the complexity of the situation. But why oh why are you wasting your precious time assaulting Bob when you have your holier than now coil setup? Not seeing any updates on its testing or progress. just a question, Have you completed a coil yet? if so with that single coil have you ran some simulation at low power to test your theory? Personally i would be really annoyed if i wound 6 or 12 coils to test something that hasn't been replicated yet when i could of tested one completed coil to gauge output.
Quote from: Paul-R on May 05, 2009, 11:58:06 AM
Why would he bother?
Bob doesn't need to prove anything. Build his device for yourself, a tricky build,
and prove it for yourself. Here's how:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf
But don't imagine that Bob is going to waste time justifying himself.
Paul.
You are either nuts, a fool, or you have a working replication. Period!
It's about time people start calling on Boyce to demonstrate a working replication.. How many people have attempted to build his device and failed? 100s? I've seen many (valid) replication attempts, and calls for people to come forward with a working BB device .. And it just hasn't happened yet. In my mind the working "BB resonant production" is a complete fantasy, lame power game, or a scam, at this point.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 08, 2009, 01:33:26 AM
You are either nuts, a fool, or you have a working replication. Period!
I don't have a working replication. The difficulty is beyond my abilities.
I have given you the where-with-all to understand the Physics that he uses. Either you read Chapter 10, or you don't.
Its that simple.
the same could be said for any of the hydrogen generators... There are no replicatable results on any of the well known model types...
I disagree , that sri-lankan kid , Daniel Dingel and herman anderson made it work .
And Stanley Meyers made it work .
And apparently , the japanese can do liek dingel , and power something using just water , without any hydrogen ... Electricity from water
Quote from: Paul-R on May 08, 2009, 04:12:45 AM
I don't have a working replication. The difficulty is beyond my abilities.
I have given you the where-with-all to understand the Physics that he uses. Either you read Chapter 10, or you don't.
Its that simple.
I find it really strange that you actually think you understand how this device works.. When in fact, you don't even know if the thing works! I've read chapter 10, and I think the "physics" spoken of exists only in the minds of the inventors. .. It is pseudoscience, until people start to actually replicate the device. That's how science works... If a device can't be replicated after multiple valid attempts, scientists assume the original experiment/design is flawed, and the device doesn't work. IF a device is proven to work, such as the Stan Meyer "WFC" or the BB 101 resonant cell, then the physics behind the it are examined, theorized, etc.. Not the other way around! For some weird reason, you and many other people on this forum do the following. 1.) theorize how something might work. 2.) Start to have "faith", and actually believe the device works
3.) defend the inventor and technology with religious vigor
Well put Newbie, I totally concur with your last post.
There is a lot of wishful thinking that goes on, and I believe a lot of people - like Bob - eventually and ultimately convince themselves they have achieved something special. It's like self-hypnosis - mind over matter so as to speak.
Dankie said:
QuoteI disagree , that sri-lankan kid , Daniel Dingel and herman anderson made it work .
And Stanley Meyers made it work .
But how do you know this? We've all seen and read the stories, but where is the actual proof?
Blind faith in people who say they have achieved this, that and the other is not the way forward - however believable, however convincing, or however pleasant that person may be.
Who do you know that has replicated any of these peoples devices and had it independently verified?
I see many concepts - I'm yet to see a proof of concept.
Proof being the operative word!
Ultimately, ignorance has a lot to answer for.
It's like these people who knock together an electrolyser which gives out a certain amount of gas per Watt, then build a more efficient unit that gives out more gas for less power and so assume they have achieved OU or over-Faraday. It's nonsense.
Quite simply, ignorance is the driving force behind many myths!
Well there hasnt been any "step-by-step" guide made for Dingle's tech or that Sri Lankan kid .
I dont see the point of doubting them since thye havent really shown us anything.
I believe Dindel and that Sri Lankan are for real , at least they havent sent us on a wild expensive goose chase .
Quote from: dankie on May 08, 2009, 03:57:18 PM
Well there hasnt been any "step-by-step" guide made for Dingle's tech or that Sri Lankan kid .
This is exactly the problem(s) I just wrote about.
An inventor claims to have some revolutionary invention/technology (which supposedly breaks the most experimentally proven laws of physics) .. Such as a car running on water (not LENR or Fusion, which aren't proven yet either.. close though). They don't show the world (open source) or an actual scientist exactly how to build their device, or even bother selling a crude working prototype .. Which could make them millions of dollars.. Then they'll usually be looking for investors or even selling similar devices that have absolutely nothing to do with their original claim/invention... (i.e. Dingel and Boyce are both selling a brute force electrolyser.. C'mon)
Quote
I dont see the point of doubting them since thye havent really shown us anything.
There is every reason to doubt these guys, and absolutely no reason to believe them ... Because the haven't shown use anything! No youtube videos, no working prototypes, nothing!
Quote
I believe Dindel and that Sri Lankan are for real , at least they havent sent us on a wild expensive goose chase .
You are grasping at straws
I dont really care about youtube videos , I care about the truth . ;)
Beware of what you see , see with your mind young newbie .
You still have alot to learn newbie ... Still much to learn little newbie ...
Quote from: dankie on May 08, 2009, 05:04:07 PM
I dont really care about youtube videos , I care about the truth . ;)
I agree youtube videos aren't definitive proof ("the truth"), but hey, it is better than nothing...
Quote
Beware of what you see , see with your mind young newbie .
Clearly you are living in a fantasy world with the majority of the people here.... which is fine, if you can't deal with reality... Just put me on your ignore list.
Quote
You still have alot to learn newbie ... Still much to learn little newbie ...
Rofl.. Are you gunna play the "I'm mystical" game now? C'mon...
I've actually been watching overunity.com and most of the other "FE" research sites for quite a while... I've even done a few experiments, which was fun... But, not really productive.... and I know at this point... Almost everything you see and hear is crap ... Hydrocarz (ionizationx) , the "Stan Meyer is a genius" gang, and almost anyone who claims to have a revolutionary energy device with nothing to show.
Quote from: Paul-R on May 07, 2009, 09:38:21 AM
Yes. He has several systems, and one of them is based on "brute force electrolysis". It is relatively cheap and easy to build, and would act as a booster.
The system for which he is famous does not work on electrolysis. It "fractures" water along the lines of Stan Meyer and John Worrell Keely, using 48.8 Khz, and octave down on that, and a further octave down as well. I saw a demonstration of a similar technology at the UK Free-Energy Conference last year, and the bubbles came from the bulk of the liquid, and not from the plates.
i personally have tested boyces apparent setup using chapter10 pdf. i am a tool maker/engineer and have cnc equipment at my disposal to create the tolerances required, tolerances better than a thou as mentioned before.
the basic outcome was not very much happening, little gas no more than 10 lpm
however i did come accross a very interesting discovery while working on this. my dad is a radio amateur and understands frequencies very well. now my understanding is that to use a frequency and the use 2 of its harmonics will do nothing special, as there all harmonics of the SAME frequency.
what i did find out about was the special 42.8khz frquency and why bubbles seem to form at this frequency...
the frequency is actually used in ultrasonic jewellery cleaners, and use cavitation to clean the parts. coincidence, i think not.
in the right setup it is possible to split water using cavitation but in small amounts, you also find the water heats up and becomes unuseable.
many people have had great success building cavitation heaters using this frequency,
just food for thought.
Good post HC
I have read of various people claiming to get bubbles emanating from between plates and not on them when using dc pulses, and thinking that they are 'fracturing' water and that these bubbles are Hydroxy.
As you have pointed out (and people should take note of this) ultrasonic frequencies will cause standing waves between plates, producing a mechanical pressure on the water itself. So the water is actually being stressed by continual compressiion and rarefraction. At certain points of the standing wave, at rarefraction, the density of the water drops enough for some of it to vapourise - hence we get bubbles. But it is NOT Hydroxy, it is water vapour - H2O in gaseous state, NOT O2 and H2!
This is the principle on which an ultrasonic fogger/mister works. The higher the frequency the smaller the bubbles, the finer the mist - but they all produce water vapour, not O2 and H2!
@newbie123
Quote:
"I've read chapter 10, and I think the "physics" spoken of exists only in the minds of the inventors. .. It is pseudoscience, until people start to actually replicate the device. That's how science works... If a device can't be replicated after multiple valid attempts, scientists assume the original experiment/design is flawed, and the device doesn't work."
I don't mean to knitpick too severely but some of your statements seem way off base.
Quote:
--"it's pseudoscience until people start to actually replicate the device"
No, science is the pursuit of fact and you do not need a degree nor public opinion to substantiate it, if only one person can prove for themselves something is fact then that is science. You seem to insinuate that if the wright brother's did not show their airplane to anyone or that if other's did not have the expertise to successfully replicate it then it would fall into the realm of pseudoscience and this is simply not the case.
Definition--Science:
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Quote:
--"If a device can't be replicated after multiple valid attempts, scientists assume the original experiment/design is flawed and the device doesn't work"
I believe the key phrase here is "scientists assume", if a scientist declares their assumtion's as fact then he/she is not a competent scientist. As well there is the issue of what constitutes a "valid" attempt, If one hundred scientists try and fail to replicate something they obviously do not understand does this constitue a valid attempt?, even if the attempt is based on an ignorance to the facts necessary to succeed?. There is also the issue of what I call "majority rule", many people have this false impression that if more people believe something then somehow it must be more factual. The last I heard fact and truth were not statistically based, it is what it is irregardless of what we may believe at the time.
Don't get me wrong I have nothing against science or scientists, I believe our future depends on scientific advancement. What I do have a problem with is people inferring god-like all-knowing status to groups of people having certain occupations, doctors and lawyers included, LOL. At the end of the day they are only human and history has proven we will make mistakes or errors in judgement, it is part of what defines us as human.
Regards
AC
I personally don't have a lot of problems with Chapter 10 as it mostly concerns the construction of various designs of hydroboosters.
I do have my doubts about some of the claims, such as a 50% increase in MPG, but there is nothing in the way of real science provided to argue about.
However, one page, 10 - 91, is clearly wrong, illustrating that perhaps the author, Patrick Kelly, should re-evaluate what he thinks he knows.
As one famous baseball coach once said, "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts"
Quote from: Hydro-Cell on May 08, 2009, 06:12:14 PM
i am a tool maker/engineer and have cnc equipment at my disposal to create the tolerances required, tolerances better than a thou as mentioned before.
100 insulated cells with all plates flat to a thou and located with respect to
eachother to a thou? Maybe you work for CERN or a firm that makes satellites
for the military. Its a colossal achievement.
You must get the plates at the null points of the standing wave. Otherwise you have nothing.
Paul.
Quote from: Paul-R on May 09, 2009, 10:09:56 AM
100 insulated cells with all plates flat to a thou and located with respect to
eachother to a thou? Maybe you work for CERN or a firm that makes satellites
for the military. Its a colossal achievement.
You must get the plates at the null points of the standing wave. Otherwise you have nothing.
Paul.
did Bob B has access to such firm(s) ?
yet he is experiencing more
gas production...
hho or water steam ?
water steam seem as much possible, if not more, then hho production.
it could be a mix of the 2, to know for shure, one have to see for himself.
Quote from: allcanadian on May 09, 2009, 05:32:11 AM
I don't mean to knitpick too severely but some of your statements seem way off base.
Quote:
--"it's pseudoscience until people start to actually replicate the device"
No, science is the pursuit of fact and you do not need a degree nor public opinion to substantiate it, if only one person can prove for themselves something is fact then that is science. You seem to insinuate that if the wright brother's did not show their airplane to anyone or that if other's did not have the expertise to successfully replicate it then it would fall into the realm of pseudoscience and this is simply not the case.
Definition--Science:
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
I think you are missing my point. Maybe I should have used "wild speculation" instead of "pseudoscience".
Let me give you an example...
If you have a interesting device that nobody has replicated and shown to the public, before the inventor starts speculating on what is actually happening in the device... Wouldn't it be logical for the inventor to have working replications out in the public? I mean... Is the inventor absolutely perfect?? Is there no room for error in his design and theories??
Quoteif only one person can prove for themselves something is fact then that is science
... This isn't how science works! The device would need to be replicated by someone else before the inventor even KNOWS (or PROVES to himself) the device is producing abnormal results, etc.. As I said error is always possible (nobody is perfect), and the best way to check this is through independent replication and verification.
Some of the best known physics/scientists are almost always very, very, overly skeptical about their results.. Max Planck didn't even believe his own work at first.
QuoteYou seem to insinuate that if the wright brother's did not show their airplane to anyone or that if other's did not have the expertise to successfully replicate it then it would fall into the realm of pseudoscience and this is simply not the case.
C'mon now... Observing a large object flying in the air, doesn't even compare to the difficulty of measuring/observing gas, OU, etc..
Here's another example of wild speculation... Check out this Bob Boyce video.. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bob+boyce&emb=0&aq=f# About 3:45 into the video.. He's claiming "longitudinal energy from human tissue" is causing the little spikes on the scope.. Nonsense! This is pure crackpot speculation.. Nobody has even replicated the device yet, or proven to the public that it actually does something special.
Quote
--"If a device can't be replicated after multiple valid attempts, scientists assume the original experiment/design is flawed and the device doesn't work"
I believe the key phrase here is "scientists assume", if a scientist declares their assumtion's as fact then he/she is not a competent scientist.
After 100+ replications fail ... then "assume" probably becomes "know", and "fact" .... Is it that hard to realize if something can't be replicated after 100s of attempts there is a 99+ percent chance that the device doesn't work, or a scam? There is alway a chance that the original device really worked, but you need to play the odds...
Btw, I'm not trying to discourage any replication attempts of "new" devices.. But, I feel it is time people come to the conclusion that Bob Boyce and Stan Meyer were full of it.... The are either scammers, have mental problems, or enjoy the attention, whatever the case.... They haven't proved to the public that their devices work after many years.
Some might say ... "They don't owe the public anything, they don't need to prove their devices work" .. I say ... BS, they need to prove their devices work or be considered crackpots to the public/ FE community.
Good post again Newbie - I just wish there were a few more well-grounded people on this forum.
'Wild Speculation', yes there's a good phrase. And it probably gets used far too little around here.
Too many people make these 'wild speculations', and too often these wild speculations are taken as gospel by the gulible, without any thought or consideration being given to what is actually being said.
Particularly vunerable to wild speculation - and psuedoscience - are the ignorant or uneducated who lack the basic scientific background knowledge on which to call upon or be guided by.
It seems that time after time the gulible will buy into whatever nonsense is posted irrelevant of the issues it poses in terms of real science. They will then become fanatical about it defending the post and poster tooth and nail, even when they have no comprehension at all about what is being suggested.
All very strange... and rather sad really.
@newbie123
I understand your point and agree there is much speculation and confusion but I see this in mainstream science as well.These silly black holes, worm holes, multiple dimensions and fantasy particles ect... is nothing more than wild speculation and as you say the gullible public as well as scientists believe it is fact. The fact of the matter is than none of these things have one shred of tangible proof to substantiate them, they have never been observed and any random measurements give no insight into what in fact it is in reality----again,wild speculation, is this what you consider "real science?",LOL. Here's a neat trick, the next time you meet a person or person's who considers themselves very knowledgeable ask them this simple question----"what is electricity,magnetism and gravity?", I think you will be very surprised at the lack of credible answers. But if by chance you get an answer, most likely wild speculation, then ask them this---"you propose to understand these primary forces so maybe you can explain how one would go about manipulating each of them for mankind's benefit", the question you should ask yourself is how much credibility can a person have when they have little or no control over something they proclaim to understand completely?--- little if any is my answer. In any case I agree with you that there is too much guessing happening in this forum and in what we call science.
Its ok to be doubtful , but I find the attitudes of newbie and the like quite pointless .
If you can only whine and cry @ how everything sucks and everything is "speculation" and somehow thinking you are bsmart in all this , you were made for overunity.com . Stop whining @ how nothing is credible and start trying to understand . You are probably looking for that miracle easy to do thing before you waste your whole 100$ budget and have allergy to "raking risks" ... But this is how pathetic the OU community is , even if they are 5,000 they cant get anything done .
I have seen alot of proof and see something here in all this plethora of *ish* , for example, there is a youtube user by the name Zeropointunlimited who made some quite remarkable videos .
Unfortunately all the good videos are gone now ...
Quote from: allcanadian on May 09, 2009, 03:03:56 PM
@newbie123
I understand your point and agree there is much speculation and confusion but I see this in mainstream science as well.These silly black holes, worm holes, multiple dimensions and fantasy particles ect... is nothing more than wild speculation and as you say the gullible public as well as scientists believe it is fact.
I've been watching some TV shows on physics lately (about extra dimensions) and they take it to the extreme (not nessesarily accepted theories) just to make it more interesting, so I wouldn't go by everything you see on TV (if that is the case)..
But quantum physics has made many amazing predictions and models of how things work in our world... I.E. the prediction of all the quarks confirmed 50 years later, etc.. Quarks, at one time, were just as crazy as wormholes and extra dimensions....
But calling these predictions "wild speculation" is just ignorant.. Sorry!
QuoteThe fact of the matter is than none of these things have one shred of tangible proof to substantiate them, they have never been observed and any random measurements give no insight into what in fact it is in reality----again,wild speculation, is this what you consider "real science?",LOL. Here's a neat trick, the next time you meet a person or person's who considers themselves very knowledgeable ask them this simple question----"what is electricity,magnetism and gravity?"
Electricity and magnetism are very well understood! Gravity is the least understood.. But if you boil it all down enough it will probably come into Quantum Electrodynamics (again, some amazing predictions are made by this!) .... Then maybe down to "What is a photon" and "Why does it always travel at the speed of light" or ... "Why is the universal expansion accelerating?" Which real scientists will usually admit they don't know exactly why, and what they are... And explain that Science isn't really geared toward figuring out what things are, exactly, but more to model and predict their behavior.
I know there are lots of guys out there, in the FE development community, that'll say: "electrons don't exist" .. "free energy/ aether is all around you!" , etc.. But they are twisting the truth .. Or just spreading their own fantasy... But there are some that have a very good understanding of how things work..
I also understand that some physicists are ignorant (or stubborn) about new ideas and theories.. ... And they might make fun of new ideas, experiments, and physicists who experiment with LENR/Cold Fusion, etc.. .. These Physicists are just as bad, or worse than the FE amateurs who spread their own fantasy theories!
AllCanadian
I don't really think there will be that many 'gulible' scientists out there, if anything they can be the greatest skeptics. Yes they may have conflicting theories from time to time until something is proven beyond doubt, but they are only theories, and usually even their theories are based on years of knowledge and experience.
Yes some make mistakes and some get it completely wrong, but most scientists tend to predict rather than wildy speculate. And following a prediction based on known science and mathematics, they then go after tthe evidence to prove their theories right or wrong. This is how things in real science work and how real science progresses.
And, many things predicted are no longer prediction or speculation. Take the Cern Accelerator or the Hadron Colider that have discovered and confirmed quantum particles that scientists had previously only predicted the existence of. Real scientists conducting real science.
It just seems strange to me that given the things mankind can now design and build, no one has been able to replicate devices such as Meyers WFC of Boyces super-efficient cell.
Dankie
QuoteIts ok to be doubtful , but I find the attitudes of newbie and the like quite pointless .
If you can only whine and cry @ how everything sucks and everything is "speculation" and somehow thinking you are bsmart in all this , you were made for overunity.com . Stop whining @ how nothing is credible and start trying to understand
The point is, Newbies attitude is not 'pointless', it is simply grounded.
No one is 'whining @ how nothing is credible', it's just that there is nothing in the way of proof to back up claims. And what is there to understand, most of these wild claims are not based on any science,
to understand. No chemical reactions, no balanced equations...nada!
Talk is cheap... and anyone can do it... anyone can say anything, but you'd have to be totally insane to believe everything you were told by people you don't even know!!
@newbie123
Quote:
"Which real scientists will usually admit they don't know exactly why, and what they are... And explain that Science isn't really geared toward figuring out what things are, exactly, but more to model and predict their behavior."
This is what I have found as well, the nobel prize winners are usually the ones admitting it's all "best guess" and that nobody really knows exactly what things are. Albert Einstein in his later years, when asked if he could have just one question answered supposedly stated---" I just want to know what an electron is". Maxwell in his papers stated many times he is not considering the fields external to matter nor the true nature of the effects only their behahior. I think science studies the nature of things but it is the inventors who have made the most relevant discoveries which benefit mankind directly, many of these inventors may not have a scientist's credentials but the best inventors follow rigorous scientific principals. Personally I keep notes on every experiment I have ever done and log the results.
Regards
AC
scienetifically if it hasnt been replicated, and if it cant be replicated at will, then it doesnt exist.
AC said
Quotebut the best inventors follow rigorous scientific principals
Exactly my point - and this is often lacking with backyard inventors and tinkerers, which is often why credibility is lacking.
Hi Loner
I had a feeling you might drop in.
I know we seem to be at odds with Meyer, but that is not to say I have totally rejected the possibility that he achieved something interesting.
It's odd really, because I was more-open minded about Meyer until I watched the video lecture clips and read through the, 'Hydrogen Fracturing Technical Brief'. It was from then on that I began to have serious concerns and in my eyes Meyer lost a great deal of credibility.
I found nothing in the lectures made any scientific sense, and little things, like his mannerisms and the somewhat patronising way he spoke to the audience began to ring alarm bells. To me there was something of the 'teacher giving a lesson on a subject he was not wholly familiar with and so making things up as he went along' about it.
His audience were also obviously laymen as no one asked any key questions - I only wish that I had been there!
You don't need to be a genius to find the flaws and inconsistencies in the technical brief - you don't need to be a scientist to see that it is padded out with pseudo-technical jargon and often inappropiate or irrelevent formulae. No, you only need to be versed in basic science and electronics to see that things do not quite add up.
I really am puzzled why the Meyer Technical Brief is like a Bible to so many people, and can only assume it is because they do not possess the background in science to question it. Problems start right at the beginning of Meyer's Technical Brief, page 1-1, where Meyer gives the dielectric constant of water as being 78.54 @ 25c, and then uses this figure for any rellevant calculations throughout - even though in his videos he clearly states that his WFC can use any available source of water!
And, why does he refer to it as the Hydrogen Fracturing Process... and not the water fracturing process which it would surely be? I detect a bit of marketing hype - it sounds more impressive to be fracturing hydrogen than plain old 'water'.
But hey, this is only my opinion, each to his own.
I would ask just one thing of anyone that believes whole-heartedly in Meyer, that is:
Please explain to me how pulling electrons off the water molecule can lead to the production of Hydrogen and Oxygen.
As simple balanced chemical equation will suffice!
Hi guys
I stumbled onto this thread while looking for a line on 'seamonkey's earlier project.
Now Paul R
Don't make comments on a project that you have not built if you have some experience on building cell ok but you need to built a big one and have one of the 'F' or 'G' boards, not that it will do you any good.
This could well be the same for you newbie123.
If you have read the D9 and the 10 both are from the same guy, Pat Kelly, both have many flaws.
So to Pat Kelly most of the upsets come from you printing false, and or misleading information, do not print any thing that you can not with out a doubt know it's true. Printing stuff that has not been verified is in it's self is a fraud unless you state that it is untested. 'Proof of concept' means that the process has been verified to work. That it has worked and done as you have stated.
Another thing if you are reporting thing make sure you have the correct information or do not print it at all.
Here is a couple of posts may be of interest
Hi Wouter
I have been to busy to go there for awhile.
I have not name called Bob or have set out to 'assassinate his character' so why am I being attacked in this manor.
Bob said what I had predicted he would say, and is finding ways to explain away things.
Many of the posts are saying that we did not follow the 'instructions' all the building of the cell,
That is not true, all the instruction were followed and I have full confidence in Ian that it was done correctly. I did not put it together or do the initial testing and conditioning of the cell that was done by Ian at his workshop where the vid was made.
In being part of a group of dedicated people that are trying to make a difference, I was asked for my services to help do the final testing.
Bob is no different to me in one respect as he has stated in his post.
I am an invalid pensioner, just because I can walk and 'look normal', I am on a pension, I do not own a home, it is a Government one, I pay high rent, and I do not have any superannuation.
I do not have an elaborate work shop such Bob has, fitted out with so many instruments.
All that was asked was to post his data and results, so even if he did not want to continue many of us may be able to.
All I have got is abuse, at least I did post and share the information that I found out, more could have been gained with a least a true circuit, that matched a board. This would have allowed fault finding if there was something not working. It is no good Pat Kelly stating that the 'G' board is ok and you do not need a circuit, how else can you fault find problems with out one.
What do we do chuck it in the bin and buy a new one?
I will have to write a reply on the watercar site but it may never see the light of day.
Ian has asked me to see if there is any thing that can be doe to save any thing.
With out full circuit information to match the board, we will have to start with a 'fresh board' or even try Les Banki's on it. We know that the out put was there on the toroidal when set up on the bench with the 240v 20w lamp load, and it was lined up. There was over 300v on the output with the lamp load, not enough current to fully light the lamp.
Some post are saying and did Pat Kelly that I should have had 200v on the cell, but in one post of Bob's he stated that it was to be 1.5v per cell 150v. and there should be about 200mA, this is why it was set up that way, we got 14ltrs a min from the cell at 204v 10amps. This was after the cell had been conditioned.
And this one
Hi guys
I have been sick for a few days and still am, but I went back to the topic in question, it was on about phases, To me in some of it Bob was talking like a politician, saying a lot meaning nothing, it seem Bob had help but was not listening to some of the others.
They went on for awhile then recon some other group was on to them and they stopped the thread, this may be what you were talking about Wouter.
' nature of the phenomena' well in the earlier bits they were on about three phase 'phenomena'
Bob did not really catch on, I think on what may well have been the 'phenomena of the Triplen effect' with the third and fifth harmonics. Then there was an interesting bit,
Bob Boyce Quote
'There are two modes of operation of a true 3 phase toroidal power system. One is pulsed mode, and one is rotational mode. Each has different timing and phase requirements.
Pulsed mode is where the timing of the pulses are such that the entire toroid pulsates at the same frequency, all nearly in phase.
Rotational mode is where the timing of the pulses are about 120 degrees out of phase. These are driven in a Wye configuration.' End
The E and F boards to me only will try and do the pulsed mode, so if all the pulses are lined up and fired so that they appear in the secondary at the same time, is all it will achieve.
This is what I did with no effect, the pulse width I had it just operating, having the scope on then just turning the 'pulse width pot' until you just see movement, this would be the minimum pulse width that you could get, you must keep an eye on the ammeter in the primary coil line as well, you can let it go just past the 'calculated current' be careful to far it will shoot up like a rocket.
But the quote below tells us why we have been having problems.
Bob Boyce quote
'The PWM3 series waveform generator boards that I put into the public domain were to allow others to experiment with the 3 phase toroid for powering their cell stacks, but they are really just proof of concept devices with no phase control. This allowed them to be safer for others to experiment with, as it is difficult to accidentally happen upon an avalanche without precise control of phase. The NE556 was a poor choice, which I now regret, as the TL594 would have been more suitable back then. The HexController is the newer device on my bench. It is based on an Atmel AT-Mega48 microcontroller chip. At this time, that board is still proprietary, but I do have a couple of alpha testers working with a version that I intent to release into the public domain if all works out well with it. That board allows precise control of frequency, phase, and pulse duration.' end
Some where one of them also mentioned, the same thing that a colleague of my said, 'if the opto-coupler does not go to zero'
The concern here is that the Fet will stay on and may miss a pulse. This will set up a higher current pulse.
It is all quite obvious that Bob has been into the Jin labs a lot, and Shinichi Seike, and of cause SM, now is this seamonky? he was taking a lot of interest in his work, much looks familiar?
Yes scalar waves may be around but none on this project, I think that Bob was tying to reproduce the effect you see in the diagram, if it posts.
I expect the thoughts are that it may be able to be reproduced with the toroidal.
I did achieve the 'similar looking result' but it of cause could not be scalar.
it also evident for Bob to use the second statement he would need phase shift control as well and that is not in the PWM series.
I am not sure but I think that it is possible with the hex controller if so programmed.
If you are manipulating harmonics and are using 'three phase' principals then as you get towards the 120deg you may get the 'triplen' effect, this will give out a large amount of power, and may snowball with dramatic effect when using toroidal. The lining up of the currents and voltages can destroy and bend metal, I have seen the effects my self in a generator.
With this all in mind then may be a new board design is needed, but are you going to try and use the triplen effect of go after 'scalar'. The triplen is there we know for sure but can we control it, and if so will it be any good used on a 'cell'.
I also read his earlier report on his version of the 'alternator' I don't buy his explanation, the only way would be to duplicate a short and an open circuit, but again is it worth the effort.
Now on the subject of the MIB, if as you say Bob revealed every thing, then they would have no effect on the out come.
I have made it well know who I am where I can be found, I have also made it clear that there are copies of my work in secure locations, one in a security vault and it is not in Australia with a security firm who I do not know the name either. If any thing happens to me all the work will be sent out to a large number of email address. It is better for them for me to stay 'alive' and to slow my progress to production, or pay me off.
So far neither has happened, but when the testing for real starts that will not be long, then if a successful test is made and proof of concept is made, then I expect to see some movement if they are interested in stopping me.
This is why I have stopped working on the Bob Boyce project and gone back to my own, it will have a more effect on the saving the environment than any thing else. There is a big danger when you look like shutting the coal and oil burning furnaces down. I think that the US and Australia would be more worried if the Chinese got hold of the technology.
I am referring to the 'OZ Injector'.
aussepom
Does this look familiar
LOL... This thread while being broken down from a chellenge into reviewing the process of how science works while all very interesting is swaying from the original idea. Dankie calling out a claimist, and being told he is dreaming. I am failing to see how Daniel Dingel and "the Sri Lankan kid" (Sounds like a C grade comic book duo) or even the "great" Stan Meyers are not counted in your calling out (well stan is dead so will forgive you on that, but being dead doesn't mean being right).
I read in a previous post that "electricity and magnetism are very well understood". Is there effects on the polarity of molecules understood??? if so can you please point me in the direction of this knowledge???
I posted a while ago some interesting links, don't know if anyone read the information but eh. There was one "speculation" that i found very interesting. It is thought that the introduction to "intense" localised magnetic fields, like those created in "brute-force" electrolysis, actually cause the bond between the Hydrogen and Oxygen. The artical also said that this was simply a majority hyposythis (bad spelling i know) for the team that studied this. If, and please note the IF, this was true it would explain a lot of the phenomena. Like why puling the power to the cell is increasing efficientcy (no power = no field) but there would need to be a delay or lag in field "production" to electron movement for this to be true. Doesn't explain resonance thou. Worth looking at if your interested in this sort of thing...
Quote from: Farrah Day
Please explain to me how pulling electrons off the water molecule can lead to the production of Hydrogen and Oxygen.
As simple balanced chemical equation will suffice!
The electrons are not pulled off of the water molecule. They are pulled from the liberated gasses...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6677701/stanmeyer-section5
QuoteThe electrons are not pulled off of the water molecule. They are pulled from the liberated gasses...
If so, what is supposed to be happening at the water capacitor stage?
Besides this is not the case according to page 1 -7 of the Technical Brief, which states: Quote:
"The stationary "positive" electrical voltage field (E1) not only attracts the negative charged oxygen atom but also pulls away negative charged electrons from the water molecule. At the same time, the stationary "negative" electrical voltage field (E2) attracts the positive charged hydrogen atoms. Once the negative electrically charged electrons are dislodged from the water molecule, covalent bonding (sharing electrons) cease to exist, switching-off or disrupting the electrical attraction force (qq') between the water molecule.
The liberated and moving atoms (having missing electrons) regain or capture the free floating electrons once the applied voltage is switch-off during pulsing operations."
The more I read Meyer's technical brief the more the mumbo jumbo becomes apparent.
Electrons don't just "cease to exist"
"Once the negative electrically charged electrons are dislodged from the water molecule, covalent bonding (sharing electrons) cease to exist"
is just wrong..
""The stationary "positive" electrical voltage field (E1) not only attracts the negative charged oxygen atom but also pulls away negative charged electrons from the water molecule. At the same time, the stationary "negative" electrical voltage field"
This doesn't seem right either..
However, by "stationary" positive and negative voltage fields .. Does he mean "static voltage fields" i.e. "static electricity" ? It is pretty easy to prove "static" electricity will tug on a water molecule.. Put a statically charged object by some running water..
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic.html
This site has lots of good information on how electric/magnetic fields affect water.
I think he meant that the electrons cease to exist as covalent bonding electrons rather than cease to exist altogether... but nothing would surprise me any more.
It's difficult at times to know what is meant as the technical brief abounds with pages full of psuedo-technical jargon that makes for hard reading. Meyer truly had a knack of confusing you by saying the simplist thing in the most long-winded and complicated way possible.
Have you got or seen a copy of the technical brief? Makes reading Shakespeare seem easy!
Hello, I would like to buy an argument.
No you don't!
Yes I do!
No you don't!
Yes, I do! And that's not arguing, your just disagreeing with me!
No I'm not!
Yes you are!
No I'm not!
Yes you are!
I have a ton of these! I can go all night! wink, wink, nudge, nudge...
Whatever turns you on!
TPU-Elite? How's the TPU coming along? I can imagine the rabbit hole is very deep with a device like that. Makes for a great chit chat though, doesn't it?
Hi All
Watkykjy, one of the members of the waterfuelforall forum has been trying for some time to replicate Bob's setup.
Watkykjy has been in direct contact with Bob for several months.
He personally flew over to the USA to fetch his 317L plates, box and hex controller from Bob himself. Thus all components used are the exact specification as prescribed by Bob.
Unfortunately, until now we could not replicate the 80-100lpm claim.
One glimmer of hope was a few seconds of increased gas production Watkykjy saw a few months ago.
Unfortunately it was too short for him to do any measurements.
This event lead to the damage of his toroid and hex controller which he then had to rebuild.
Since the second rebuild he could not yet achieve any effect that resemble increased gas production, but Watkykjy will keep on trying.
Thus at this moment the biggest question is if the setup is viable and sustainable, but to answer that question, we first need a successful replication......
The last few pages of the thread
http://waterfuelforall.com/forum/index.php?topic=423.165
summarizes where we are at this moment and what conclusions can be drawn.
Any person interested in the 101 plate & toroid setup should find these preliminary conclusions most valuable.
Wouter
Administrator - WaterfuelForAll forum