waterman9999

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Michael Kay, Nov 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael Kay

    Thread Starter Member

    Nov 21, 2008
    20
    0
    :)When all you have is a battery, what do expect atomic science? Faraday was a great man but 200 years with out change is a long time not to learn anything about electrolysis working at a dead short IE. BIG AMPS LO VOLTS is what he worked with. When the water is a conductor ( added chemicals) it doesn't make o very good dielectric material. Its Like making a capacitor using mercury as a dielectric. Makes sending high voltage pretty hard. Volts drop to near zero. Water's components covalent bond responds to Electro Magnetic stimulation . When working with the basics the results are easy to understand and control. Work with the bond if you want to break down water into components .Learn for your self what effects it. Ideas are easy try the facts. If you don't know find out. Create an experimental situation. Or use someone else's base, like an old patent. If it is a good one it has all the details. Stanley Meyer's Patents were not very good. He left out alot of data. I found out by trying what he said and it didn't work. Not enough data. I had to repeat from the basics to make it work. I had an advantage I was a radio ham so I had the electronic basis. All he did is make a tuned circuit =π network Using electrolytic capacitors filled with water and a double inductor wound on a common core(charging choke)With a diode to double the cap discharge reaction . When you over charge them some dielectrics breaks down water is one (usually oil)( OUT OF THE ARRL HAND BOOK) Nothing new. Just a new context. Fuel verses communication ( don't forget Marconi Got credit for Radio when Tesla even in the 1890's had radio control ships running in the oceans 12 years earlier than Marconi's earliest work.
    What makes this an invention is using some known property for a new purpose .:)
     
  2. scubasteve_911

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2007
    1,202
    1
    By your logic, because something is old, then we should disregard it's credibility because they lacked super-modern equipment? These people you speak of are not famous by accident, it was because they were right!

    You need to work on your communication skills because I am having trouble understanding the point of your post..

    Steve
     
  3. scubasteve_911

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2007
    1,202
    1
    Fallacy: Appeal to Novelty or argumentum ad novitatem
     
  4. Farlander

    Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    This guy is right Steve, Faraday didn't have the equipment we have to test water properly.

    As far as history, one's fame is not based on achievement so much as it is based on the agenda setting elite's propaganda laced view of how they feel the event should be remembered. In the case of a military industrial society, the best history is one which shuns real geniuses, discourages new knowledge, and alters the facts to suit a particular view. I think it's worse here in the U.S. than Canada.

    Kay is right about one thing -- you need to have a background in chemistry to really grasp the bottom line of this concept. It is actually very simple to understand, and simple to see why Faraday didn't realize it, and even simpler why history has not adopted the truth.

    Here goes:
    A water molecule is a bond between 3 atoms, 2h and 1o. The naturally neutral h atom has 1e and 1p, making it 0v charge. The naturally occurring o atom has 8e and 8p, making it 0v charge. However, for some reason, atoms like to have FULL VALENCE SHELLS, which are orbital rings. Closest to the nucleus, the first ring wants 2e. The second ring wants 8e, but in the case of o, there's only 6e available... making 2 hydrogen the perfect donors to share their only electrodes. The result is water, a polarized, unstable molecule which exhibits properties unlike other matter, oscillates in waves, and has surface tension. CRAZY
     
  5. Farlander

    Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    Oh and it's a volatile fuel source carrying both the oxidizer and fuel together...

    So now we know that some of the time, the hydrogen electron is over with the oxygen atom, causing a + charge to the hydrogen side of the molecule, and - charge to the oxygen side of the molecule. As we all know, the electron carries a negative charge, and when more electrons then protons exist in proximity, the area carries a charge. All we would need is a properly administered high voltage field to liberate the bonded H2O into HHO gas.
     
  6. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    I'll say it again. H20 is an ash, caused from the burning of H2 and O2. It is already at the lowest energy state it can be. This IS basic chemistry. What is so hard to understand?

    You guys have taken this to the extreme of a religeon, fact don't matter, only belief does.
     
  7. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    Michael Kay,
    I invite you to return to the other thread, and provide a few more details.

    I've tried to apply your supplied dimensions of your cell to commonly accepted and scientifically proven mathematical formulas, but the capacitance readings you've supplied differ tremendously from what readings you should be observing.

    Additionally, you supplied a value of 0.167mH (167uH) for your bifilar choke, but no dimensions for it, nor any methodology on how it was wound aside from the cardboard tube.

    500 turns on an 0.33" diameter form 3 turns deep and spread over about 8.5" would do it. However, you didn't give the specifics on your design.

    I thought you didn't want any more mysteries?

    Oh, BTW - I have several carbureted Jeeps to experiment with.

    M151A1 and M151A2 Jeeps, retired from the USMC. The newest one is over 30 years old.
     
  8. scubasteve_911

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2007
    1,202
    1
    Unstable? I disagree completely. If it were unstable, we would have spontaneous decomposition of water all of the time. Every liquid has surface tension! Everything but a perfect conductor allows waves to 'oscillate' or propogate through or reflect, etc.. This is according to their permeabilities and permittivities.

    Bill is right. There takes a certain amount of energy to break a bond. In any case, you must supply this amount of energy in order to disassociate the bond. This is a well-documented chemistry fundamental. It doesn't matter if you 'resonant' it, or whatever, there is energy needed to break the bond. It so happens that burning hydrogen and oxygen is the exact opposite reaction. How can anyone expect to do this?

    It seems that you think water just needs the right 'touch' and it will fall apart. All of these bonds will sucuumb to a magical touch and fall apart. Nothing has been documented to do this to date. There are thousands of researchers working daily who are well-educated and if they thought you can make a billion dollars or more and solve the world's energy crisis, they would have done it.

    Steve
     
  9. Farlander

    Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    Steve,
    Nice comments
    I never thought about the fact that water is oxidized already...
    It kinda puts a damper on the idea...

    Here's what I think: Help me out if I'm wrong
    The heat released by an hho explosion and the water byproduct is equal in energy to the mass of initial water and the energy in its molecular bonds?
    So, the only thing that could really provide energy would be the oxygen in the air. Would a naturally aspirated engine draw in enough air through vacuum to provide the extra fuel in the form of heat?
    Having been an amateur mechanic, I put my hand over the intake to a 1.9L 4 cyl saturn engine, and it sucks pretty hard. The flow is more powerful than any vaccum cleaner I have come across. I have to assume then about 150CFM intake. Somehow I doubt oxygen has that much energy...

    well Steve, you stumped me... I'll have to think on this and get back

    don't forget to check the circuit! what do those symbols represent?
     
  10. scubasteve_911

    Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2007
    1,202
    1
    Hi Farlander, thx

    2*H2O → 2*H2 + O2 [Electrolysis step]
    2*H2 + O2 → 2*H2O [Combustion step]

    Yes, you're right. But, that is assuming a 100% reaction of the reactants. This doesn't always happen, since it would require a perfect process to burn all of the material. I ended up with a 70% in chemistry, so I am probably not the best person to be trying to explain things.

    I am not sure how to answer your other questions. It seems that the inefficiency of having an air drag can be taken down a notch by having it taken into the engine for the reaction.

    Steve
     
  11. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    There may be a misapprehension here - Faraday's discovery of the rate at which electricity dissociates water did not force science to come to a halt. The process is very important, and every imaginable means has been applied to increase the efficiency of electrolysis.

    Neither Meyer nor Boyce made a discovery because all scientific progress stopped back in 1820 and so left important or obvious research undone. Neither Meyer nor Boyce came up with a working circuit or theory behind it. They just relied on the very poor state of science education to make their stuff sound believable.
     
  12. Farlander

    Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    I typed this huge post and forgot to send it.. then my comp restarted. haha
    One thing I can't get over is that the universe is constantly falling. Gravity binds everything together. Electrons on opposite sides of the universe still have this attraction, however slight. Its the energy around everything. The Yin-Yang. So, why not steal some of it?
     
  13. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    Good Luck Prometheus!
     
  14. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    I even agree with that statement, but there are rules.

    Mother Nature is a blabbermouth, all we have to do is listen.
     
  15. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    An admirable motivation, but focusing on a quantity of water as the ultimate receptor of some undefined energy by means that utterly make no sense may not the be best methodology.

    Don't let the current state of cosmology keep pushing you for this energy. It has pretty well come apart again - string theory is no longer looked on as particularly significant, and even dark mass and energy don't seem necesary. The universe is still mysterious, but growing steadily less magical.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.