I hope you realised I was being sarcastic, hence the smilie.

I've heard that kind of arguement many times before and it's nonsense because if the oil companies were that powerful then scientific research in to anthropogenic climate would have been censored a long time ago.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

I will not worry about posting that stupid PDF now. I'm sure it's just another one of these Scams.

This bantering is just what I wanted to see.

Thanks again............. kv

__________________
Truthiness Monkeys : Obedience, Ignorance, Fear.

 

I do. I believe the point is to eliminate current draw by increasing the voltage, and pulsing and stepping the charge. Through doing this we find a lateral way of "breaking" the water. In electrolysis (30% efficiency, high current draw, poles far apart, non-pulsed) we break water. With the pulse step method, we persuade water. It's like offering to break the water, and then revoking the offer several times a second. this makes the water near break, but no current flows and no energy (very little that is. As little as possible. In theory, none.) is used. the built up charge on the electrodes feeds back to where it came from. the battery. the only energy loss is due to internal circuit resistance. which is negligible. This method is like tantric electrolysis. You never commit the energy to the water, but through teasing, the water rips itself apart. Plates must be close together, closer the better. the cell must be tuned to not consume current. Do not put catalysts in the water. It must be a dielectric (non-conductor) for this to work. The idea is that current never flows between the plates, but the voltage build up stretches the water repeatedly and incrementally more. and lets it go 42000 times a second. When the water is stretched, it gains elastic kinetic energy. when let go, it springs back, and is stretched again on the reflex recoil. so stretch, release, recoil, reflex recoil, stretch, release, recoil, reflex recoil, stretch. reflex recoil is the recoil from the recoil in the opposite direction of the original recoil. Ie. spring effect. If you get it you get it, if you don't, then think about it. Either way, this is the way.

 

I do. I believe the point is to eliminate current draw by increasing the voltage, and pulsing and stepping the charge. Through doing this we find a lateral way of "breaking" the water. In electrolysis (30% efficiency, high current draw, poles far apart, non-pulsed) we break water. With the pulse step method, we persuade water. It's like offering to break the water, and then revoking the offer several times a second. this makes the water near break, but no current flows and no energy (very little that is. As little as possible. In theory, none.) is used. the built up charge on the electrodes feeds back to where it came from. the battery. the only energy loss is due to internal circuit resistance. which is negligible. This method is like tantric electrolysis. You never commit the energy to the water, but through teasing, the water rips itself apart. Plates must be close together, closer the better. the cell must be tuned to not consume current. Do not put catalysts in the water. It must be a dielectric (non-conductor) for this to work. The idea is that current never flows between the plates, but the voltage build up stretches the water repeatedly and incrementally more. and lets it go 42000 times a second. When the water is stretched, it gains elastic kinetic energy. when let go, it springs back, and is stretched again on the reflex recoil. so stretch, release, recoil, reflex recoil, stretch, release, recoil, reflex recoil, stretch. reflex recoil is the recoil from the recoil in the opposite direction of the original recoil. Ie. spring effect. If you get it you get it, if you don't, then think about it. Either way, this is the way.

 

and later:

I didn't realize it was an emotional bond between the hydrogen and oxygen in water.

You seem to be describing molecular vibrations, which are at a much higher frequency than 42 KHz. Have you read anything about infrared adsorption spectra?

In any event, you are adding kinetic energy to the water (as you claim), but you also claim there is no energy used to do that? Don't you believe in conservation of energy and matter?

Yes, you should.

John

 

What we are doing is manipulating molecular vibrations.
Yes, this will change the infrared adsorption spectra. It will enlarge it, thus making the water more conducive to absorbing a larger spectrum of IR light.
So? What does IR absorbtion factor (also increased) and spectrum have to do with what we are trying to achieve?

When we manipulate the molecular vibrations, we intensify them. So the frequensy lowers... Ie. the H and O bonds don't normally oscillate at 42 Khz, but when we intensify the amplitude of that oscillation, it does.

The first law of thermal dynamics. Ah, yes. I do believe it.
But if you read properly, you may have deduced that the cell is a capacitor, not a resistor. It charges, then before the jump, discharges. the current goes right back into the battery it came from. THE CURRENT DOESN'T JUMP. 0 Watts (ideal, never actual, but close as it can get). Thus the energy is invested into the plates (for about 0.00002 seconds) and then rolls back into the battery.

The cell uses charge to coax water little by little over the edge of break point, without actual current flow through the cell.

Anything with inertia is can be quite emotional, sometimes more so than inanimate lifeforms.

 

I must emphasize once more, we want close to 0 current draw.
The cell needs to be tuned for this to happen, otherwise you'll get less output at more cost. With zero current draw, we use stepped and pulsed potential to break the water.

That's what sets this apart from standard electrolysis, which was ironically discovered by the inventor of the capacitor. A standard electrolysis tank is a resistor. Faraday can be forgiven for not discovering the capacitive electrolysis method as things like Transistors and 555 timers weren't around until the 1970's..

The whole "HHO, improve your mpg" thingy is just called HHO to get your attention. It's just electrolysis. It isn't even efficient, let alone over unitic, but will improve your mpg. It'll also leave your car battery perpetually under-charged, if but slightly.

The "PWM HHO circuit", Meyers/Joe/Brown/possibly Klein's design, is a different kettle of fish. It's what Jules Verne predicted, and is beyond efficient. Because it is a non-discharging capacitor. Current never flows between the plates, just up the one and back again.

Lowest current (none if possible). Highest voltage. Lowest heat. Highest yield.

Over unity is not possible, but efficiency is most often laterally applied.

 

DREAM ON!

Until you actually Prove your idea, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself. They just show your ignorance on this subject.

__________________
I No Longer accept Private Messages on here.
All Emails to me Must Contain the Word \"Electronic\" in the \"Subject Line\"
or they go Directly to my Junk Mail Folder.
Email me at: chemelec@hotmail.com
Website: http://www3.telus.net/chemelec

 

Please provide the data.

Data?

It is not a question of what you want to happen or what you dream may be happening, it is a question of fact. Do you have any data to present? Please show your results?

John

 

Back at you.

 

hi Myles,
I know this reply is off topic, but bear with me,,

You should expect some criticism from your peers, the only evidence you have given to back your theory,
is from whats being posted on web sites.

We all know there are a number of individuals who enjoy sending people on wild goose chases just for the hell of it
and the web seems a good place for them to operate.

What you are trying to do has been tried in many well equiped labs around the world, with no success.

Electrolysis of H2O has been well established and used for many years.

Its the water molecular vibration bit, causing the disassociation of water molecules,
with zero energy input from a driving oscillator; that dosn't have any evidence to support it.

If you can find any factual/proven evidence that supports the theory, please post it and I will eat crow...

Regards

__________________
Eric
"Good enough is Perfect"

PIC tutorials:
Gramo's: www.digital-diy.net/
Bill's: www.blueroomelectronics.com/

 

What I have put forward is theory. I could fudge you results of any nature, so as to satisfy your scrutiny, but that is not my intent.
My intent is to open your mind not your mouth.
I do not ask you to believe, I do not ask you to verify.
I am simply suggesting a physical model for an actual occurrence, because if it hadn't been done, this thread wouldn't exist.
I am replicating the device, but it is a time consuming process, and my equipment and resources are very limited. When I have results, I will no doubt share them. In the mean time, please share your opinions to the topic, and keep your opinions of me to yourself.

 

Understood. Not all of it is derived from the deranged, though, and most of it isn't tied together or stated clearly on those sites.
But yes, if I were my peer, I'd also be waiting in line to take a shot.
Thank you for understanding that that would do no good, and reading with an open mind.

Most definitely. But I'd like to say that, more often than not, where there's a chase, there's a goose. I say, if we're already on the chase, let's try harder to catch the goose than to disprove its existence.

My guess is they tried not to prove it.
It's very easy to not prove something.
Ever pondered if the conclusions of myth busters may be malformed by improper experimentation through negligence, ignorance or bias?
Maybe not myth busters, but I wouldn't put it past any government of funding organization..

I have no proof for you now, maybe someday I shall have.
But in the meantime, I propose the theory that "if it can work, with regard to observed physical laws and habits of the universe, then it most likely will."

Has anyone found it not to work?

And if it doesn't, it's black-bird pie for me..

Regards,
Myles

 

I could find videos of working cells, driving cars and meter readings,
But I don't really think there is such thing as both postable and irrefutable evidence. I think it's the type of thing one needs to examine one's self to be sure of, because media is both an emphasis and equivocation. Still, if I get anything I think will hold, or any personal results, I'll post right away.

Thanks for the support and advice to all those involved.

 

There is a difference between theory and outlandish claims and dreams.

So, if your theory is correct, there should be a change in the IR spectrum of water (condensed) depending on whether you are irradiating it with your 42 KHz energy. At least that is what you claim.

Now, one cannot disprove that proposition according to simple logic theory; however, you could prove it. And of course, anyone else who might try to prove it and fail, would be accused by you as not trying hard enough.

So, why don't you prove it? That is what science is all about.

John