The Bob Boyce challenge

[newbie123]

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...

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.

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.

[Hydro-Cell]

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.

[Farrah Day]

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!

[allcanadian]

@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

[Farrah Day]

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"