Ok so I was rambling back there. Here's how it works, supposedly, tell me if this seems feasible-
(2)hydrogen and (1)oxygen are covalently bonded to form water. The (2) hydrogen each share their only electron with the oxygen atom, filling it's outer valence shell (6+2). During the time when the hydrogen electron is orbiting the oxygen atom's nucleus, the hydrogen has a positive charge, and the oxygen has a negative charge. A high enough EMF close enough to the molecule will orient the poles of the molecule, begin to decrease the angle at which the atoms are connected, and eventually pull the atoms apart as they migrate towards the opposite polarity electrode.

Thanks for all the advice, please go easy on me

 

A high enough EMF close enough to the molecule will orient the poles of the molecule, begin to decrease the angle at which the atoms are connected, and eventually pull the atoms apart as they migrate towards the opposite polarity electrode.

"EMF" means "electromagnetic field," or "electromotive force." Neither makes sense in this context.

One can have a molecule in an EM field, but "close" is not the right term. Depending on the nature of the field, one can indeed oreint the poles of the molecules. Microwave ovens do this - changing the orientation rapidly and heating the water as a result. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/h2o.html The field would not change the shape of the molecule, although a couple ressonant frequencies will make the molecule vibrate.

Once can have an electromotive force across something. The voltage across a molecule would be quite small realative to the electrode voltage.

Why would an electrically neutral molecule "migrate" toward an electrode?


I hope I've gone easy enough...

 

The idea of treating the electrolysis cell as a part of resonant load is kinda strange. You do have all those plates, but it can only appear capacitive if the electrolyte gets replaced by distilled water. Otherwise the cell most closely resembles a low-value resistance. Capacitors have to have a dielectric and not a conductor between the plates.

 

Water is a dielectric...
And it's not electrically neutral. The hydrogens' electrons are shared with the O atom so the time the electron spends with the O makes the O negative and the H positive

Read more >> Options >>








​

 

That was my point about using distilled water vice water plus some electrolyte.

 

As I've said about 3 times, distilled water works best, no electrolyte should be used, no waste heat is produced. High impedance (bifilar wound choke coils) and resistive layer (oxide) on the plate surface enhance reaction.

 

Be sure to let us know how it works out for you.

 

Meyer lied.

Deliberately.

There's no way that his cell could've reached the efficiency he claimed if it were wired as an L-C-L circuit; basically, it would have maximum conductance at resonance; no better efficiency than electrolysis.

If it were an LC resonant tank circuit, that might be another story.

 

Hey Sgt,

You've been my biggest advocate and best advisor thus far. This resonance of an L-C-L and L-C tank is important and I'm hoping you can help me work it out.

A pulse width modulator w/ frequency adjust feeds a step up transformer. The secondary feeds a pair of bifilar choke coils (oppositely wound on the same core), designed to inhibit amp flow and should be adjustable (variometer?)

This choke coil feeds the cell, parallel plates using water as the dielectric, essentially turning the entire cell into a capacitor. As soon as the dielectric breakdown voltage occurs, massive gas output and amp leakage (it shorts like a blown capacitor). But at this instant current is switched, and then switched back on coinciding with back emf oscillations. The cell is pulsed again, resulting in a step charging of the capacitor, and dielectric breakdown once again. The negative of the plates is connected to an isolated ground from the rest of the circuit. A pickup transformer detects amp leakage at the dielectric breakdown point, and signals a PLL or other feedback device to open the circuit.

Is this an LC tank circuit?
If so, what does that imply as far as resonance?

 

This sounds like a recipe for a bomb. If this procedure produces substantial electrolysis, the cell will immediately be filled with an explosive mixture of gas. Dielectric breakdown is normally characterized by a spark between plates (think shorted capacitor). Any spark and your vehicle looks like it literally had a bomb go off under the hood.

This sounds utterly dangerous.

 

Hi all,
I think you all are needing to look metallic salts. Pure water does not have the electrons available to sustain any electric charge. The di-electric must be introduced as a constant into the water, which would be too unwieldy for a vehicle of transport. Or, as an efficient personal-use energy source. But. then, I'm just the handyman, what do I know?
Dan

 

been there, are you afraid?

about the salts -- I don't think so, i saw a guy put an unopened bottle of water on top of a van de graff generator. The bottle became super electrofied... if you drank it, it would mess you up big time. just touching the bottle or the water would shock you -- I think it holds a pretty good charge, but it takes a HIGH HIGH voltage to reach the breakdown point of water, it's dilectric is 88, higher than most objects you could blow up with voltage

Now my point has been well established, and many of you are sctratching your head thinking hey could this be possible? Well it is possible, it's already been done, and when I said 1000's of cars, I meant it. In New Zealand and Australia alone their are probably well over 1000 water powered vehicles. You think the ranchers in the outback can pay for the gas for 50 km drive into a city? They did it out of necessity already, and knew also by survival necessity they could either try and publicize it and get squashed or, get friends and family running on water, then clients, etc. etc. This is not difficult technology by today's standards, it was pioneered in the 80s, an ordinary backyard mechanic with the internet and some electronics know-how could build one. Like I'm gonna do! Thanks for all the help fellas. I'll post any further questions on the main board

 

How the heck is any body supposed to be afraid of anything except ignorance? Where is your diagram?
Dan

 

I'm certainly not going to be within a mile of one of these things when some enthusiast tries it out and discovers it does go bang. Mixing the potential for sparks in a container filled with an explosive gas is not terribly smart. Why am I supposed to be afraid, and of what?

Possibly you refer to the Aussies that do their electrolysis by harnessing orgone energy... Certainly no danger there.

I would not mind at all some alternative to burning petroleum products, but nothing remotely realistic has come along yet.

We (the moderators) feel that we have a responsibility to discourage, or at least not allow discussion of dangerous devices. That is the concern here.

 

Farlander,

You've ignored informed suggestion on the basis of your extremely poor knowledge structure. This basically spits in the face of science and the people that have tried to salvage some reasonable discussion out of this thread.

Honestly, you clearly are uneducated in most disciplines that you'd have to be an expert in to effectively comment on this subject. Even at 25, I know to put trust in experts instead of thinking I know everything.. Grow up!

Steve

 

This sounds like a recipe for a bomb.

I respectfully disagree, my friend. It sounds to me like a load of hooey.

As soon as the dielectric breakdown voltage occurs... and dielectric breakdown once again...

The dielectric strength of water is more than eighty times that of air. One would require more than twenty times the proposed voltage of this experiment if the plates were [/i]only[/i] 1 millimeter apart. At the proposed voltage (which is still much to dangerous for the O.P. to be mucking about with at their present level of knowledge) the gap would have to be less than 37.5 micrometers.

I have a strong admiration for Sgt.Wookie and his accomplishments, but I suspect this task is a bit beyond his current skills.

I reiterate my previous advice to the O.P.: First, learn what all these terms actually mean. Until then, one might as well be writing poor quality science fiction.

 

As far as being educated on the subject, I don't give a poop what kind of education you have because most of the experimenters I research did not go to college. Your rigid thinking structure is why you can't get your minds around this. As for your terminology, go blow, words are for communicating not to look pretty. I haven't heard much intelligence out of scuba steve, and yet I'm being told that I need to more expertise in every related field I discuss! Well scuba steviee, I double dog dare you, tell me something about physics, chemistry, or electronics that I don't already know, and you will win the smarts contest. Dick head

 

Now for something relevant -- what voltage do you need (theoretically) to pull a molecule apart with a dielectric constant of 88 at 1mm distance? I was unable to locate the strength of the ionic bond of the water molecule with a quick google search.

 

Now for something relevant -- what voltage do you need (theoretically) to pull a molecule apart with a dielectric constant of 88 at 1mm distance? I was unable to locate the strength of the ionic bond of the water molecule with a quick google search.

First you insult us, then you want more help?

Have a read through the forum rules and try again in a new thread.