# Hydroxy gas

Discussion in 'Alternative Energy' started by Kirkg, Jul 6, 2007.

1. ### firewaterNew Member

Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
Messages:
31
Likes:
0
From the documentation I've found, it is possible achieve resonance at a lower frequencies. 30Ghz is just one of many harmonics. There are many factors which determine the resonant frequency:

1) Impurities. Natural impurities in the water, (unless your using distilled).
Which wasn't used, at least in Stanley Meyer's device because there is no electrolyte in it at all.

2) Electrodes. Will also add some impurities and if it is a consumable electrode such as in most lab and commericial electrolysis devices (carbon rod), their mass will decrease over time and will introduce more impurities as they decay. Stanley Meyer used non-consumable rods (316 stainless) Stainless steel hadn't been created when Faraday published his 1st and 2nd laws of electrolysis in 1834.

3) Water level. As the water is used up its mass will also decrease, of course you could add a precision pump to maintain levels but would require more energy.

4) Water Temperture. As the temperature rises the viscosity will change, affecting amperage draw. A cooler could be used but would also require more energy.

At 10C (50 Fahrenheit) Viscosity of water = 1.308 × 10-3 Pa*s

At 30C (86 Fahrenheit) Viscosity of water = 7.978 × 10-4 Pa*s

All these factors will determine the resonant frequency. Since they are constantly changing so will the required frequency to maintain resonance. Therefore there is only an ideal theoretical resonant frequency of water. To seperate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen using resonance efficiently a device would need to operate on a PLL (Phase Locked Loop) to adjust the frequency according to conditions within the cell in order to maintain resonance and achieve maximum gas output.

"We can see oscillations in a bowl of water and estimate that they have a frequency of a few Hertz. Small water drops, about 1 millimeter in diameter, have a resonant frequency about 100 Hz, and approach 1000 Hz at about one half millimeter diameter"
Paragraph 4

"The natural frequency of water is a bit more complicated, because it takes into account the mass of water molecules, the attraction between molecules, the distance between molecules, and some other stuff. Suffice it to say that most microwave ovens put out a frequency of 2.5 gigahertz. This means that these microwaves pulse 2,500,000,000 times per second. This isn't the lowest (also known as "primary") resonant frequency for water, but microwave manufacturers use 2.5 GHz because they want the microwave to work at any and all water temperatures. There's lots more techno-babble about resonance, matching, and the engineering of microwaves, but that'll have to be a separate question."

Also it is possible to seperate water it into hydrogen and oxygen by subjecting it to micowaves. John Kanzius a retired TV station owner, broadcast engineer and cancer survivor was looking for a cure for cancer and found he could do just that. The process is less energy efficient then standard electrolysis but it can break water it into hydrogen and oxygen.

http://www.wpbf.com/news/13383827/detail.html

Last edited: Sep 29, 2008
2. ### Hero999Banned

Joined:
Apr 6, 2006
Messages:
14,902
Likes:
79
Location:
England
Actually water has no electromagnetic resonances in the liquid phase, all the molecules are hydrogen bonded so any resonance is more than critically damped.

Those are mechanical resonances - totally different to electromagnetic resonance.

The frequency chosen for microwave ovens has nothing to do with the resonance of water. It was chosen as a compromise between heating and penetration (higher frequencies heat the surface more and lower frequencies penetrate deeper) and to simplify the design of the magnetron and wave guide.

Audio waves in the microwave range?

That sounds like nonsense to me.

The term microwave is normally applied to electromagnetic radiation and audio wave is applied to acoustic waves.

What is he talking about, acoustic waves with the same wave length as microwave radiation or the same frequency?

Acoustic waves at microwave frequencies, i.e. 1GHz are not audible, they're ultrasonic and don't travel very far.

Audio waves with the same wavelengths as microwaves radiation are audible at some wavelengths but it doesn't mention exactly what frequency/wavelength of sound is actually used calling into doubt the legitimacy of the whole article.

3. ### firewaterNew Member

Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
Messages:
31
Likes:
0
I misspoke about "audio waves in the microwave range" that's not what I meant.

"Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths ranging from 1 mm to 1 m, or frequencies between 0.3 GHz and 300 GHz."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
The microwave oven example I gave was to show it doesn't use the primary frequency of water, there are many and it says why manufactures chose that frequency. I never meant to imply that they use that frequency because it's the primary resonance of water.
So John Kanzius did in fact split water into hydrogen and oxygen using electromagnetic waves, so water does have "electromagnetic resonance in the liquid phase."

Last edited: Sep 29, 2008

Joined:
Jan 12, 1997
Messages:
-
Likes:
0

5. ### Hero999Banned

Joined:
Apr 6, 2006
Messages:
14,902
Likes:
79
Location:
England

Whether John Kanzius managed to split water into oxygen and hydrogen or not using electromagnetic waves, water still has no resonances in its liquid forum.

http://www.zyra.org.uk/microw.htm

Actualy I might not be 100% correct on the matter.

So if there is a resonance, it's very damped and varies considerably with the frequency and is much higher than the radiation supplies by an ordinary microwave. For such and experiment to work the frequency would have to be increased with the temperature of the water.

Either way I'm not convinced. Microwave energy is far too low to actually spit water up into oxygen and hydrogen. I haven't looked up the strength of the H-O bond but I can assure you that it's much higher than the microwave band or even infrared.

Even if he did manage to split water using microwaves, then I don't see what use it could be. A typical magnetron is only 60% efficient and you'd get even less energy back from burning the hydrogen. If it's true it's just sounds like a more fancy and inefficient way of doing electrolysis.

6. ### firewaterNew Member

Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
Messages:
31
Likes:
0
Did you watch the youtube video ? It is a newscast of WKYC-TV 3 in Cleveland, OH.
In the video (1:43) John White with APV Polymer Engineering of Akron Ohio inspected and confirned the results. I have allready said in my orginal post "The process is less energy efficient then standard electrolysis..."

7. ### Hero999Banned

Joined:
Apr 6, 2006
Messages:
14,902
Likes:
79
Location:
England
If it's less energy efficient than standard electrolysis then what's the point?

Joined:
Jan 10, 2007
Messages:
87
Likes:
1

Not everything is a conspiracy. I am not surprised a single human being hasn't shown an isolated engine able to run indefinately solely off splitting hydrogen and oxygen molecules from water, but it surprising how people will put so much weight into something that isn't even proven and has random non-factual terms associated with it.

9. ### TorbenWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 6, 2006
Messages:
2,507
Likes:
34
Location:
It's not helped by the media breathlessly latching onto the slightest hint of such ideas (such as the "burning water" thing) and blowing it out of proportion with wild and boundless claims which typically have little, if anything, to do with what the original researcher(s) actually said.

Pseudoscience at its finest.

Torben

10. ### killivoltWell-Known Member

Joined:
Mar 12, 2008
Messages:
3,212
Likes:
121
Location:
U.S.
Do I detect a period to this thread ?

Edit: No I think it's a gavel.

kv

Last edited: Oct 4, 2008
11. ### squigyNew Member

Joined:
Oct 17, 2008
Messages:
6
Likes:
0
I have experimented with such an electralasis device and do believe there to be a good posibility of it being of much use. I biult one of these devices and put it on my car and did not see much change in mpg. However i did not use anything to change current flow to a controlled pulse at a specific frequency and to screw it up even more i have a faulty speed sensor so i dont even know my mpg to prove or disprove its effectiveness. But there are ways of improving its eficiency and beter yet the eficiency of the engine you put it on. 1/3 of the energy gained from burning gasoline is wasted in friction ( piston/cylender wall, bearings, ect) 1/3 is in wasted heat that is expelled from the vehicle ( radiator, exhaust, ect) and 1/3 is finaly used to propell the vehicle forward. So to shorten it up a petroleum driven vehicle is not the best place to start, but it is a way to put such a device to the test in the real world. In a hydrogen cell try heating up the water. I mean HEAT IT UP! you get more gas production and a lower amp draw. I saw a cold fusion experiment on you tube and they had the same results. Take water temp to just below boiling and you will see significant results. What if you relied on the wasted heat from the exhaust to help heat the water and use the gasses given off to place the water under preassure to prevent boiling. Im currently doing research on Thermionic generators to make electricity that maybey you could use to run a hydrogen cell. Oh and while im on the toppic google the name BOB LAZAR . You dont have to believe it but just read about how the "CRAFT" works. VERY interesting! Antimatter is not far in the future.

12. ### MikebitsWell-Known Member

Joined:
May 24, 2008
Messages:
6,214
Likes:
174
Location:
San Diego, Ca
ONLINE
lol, long live the Zeta Reticulians.

13. ### squigyNew Member

Joined:
Oct 17, 2008
Messages:
6
Likes:
0
There is a machine called a P.E.T. scan machine. It uses very small amounts of antimater (yes i said antimatter) that it introduces into the brain or body somewhere and after it reacts with the tissue it gives off gama radiation that a computer then annalizes and then gives you an image. Just give it some time and one day we may be able to meet those zeta reticulans.

Joined:
Jul 24, 2008
Messages:
62
Likes:
3
Location:
Quebekistan
Squigy, you know the saying “Don’t believe everything you see on TV”?

Now keep in mind that YouTube doesn’t have all the checks and balances that TV does.…

15. ### KMoffettWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 5, 2007
Messages:
2,496
Likes:
58
Location:
Minnesota, USA
squigy,

Positron emission tomography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ken

Last edited: Oct 19, 2008
16. ### MikebitsWell-Known Member

Joined:
May 24, 2008
Messages:
6,214
Likes:
174
Location:
San Diego, Ca
ONLINE
I am not versed in this positron subject, but here is what Wiki says about a positron:
The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron.

It is common in biology to inject Isotopes into an organism and use it as a tracer to follow a process, so a PET scan sounds similar to this. I doubt this Positron thing is like converting a rock into a steak (replicator) like you see on Startrek.

17. ### saturn1bguyNew Member

Joined:
Nov 12, 2007
Messages:
360
Likes:
1
Location:
Great Salt Lake
I think Ken means the radionuclide used in the machine is not antimatter, which is correct. However, the emitted positrons certainly are.

18. ### TorbenWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 6, 2006
Messages:
2,507
Likes:
34
Location:
Yeah, but the original assertion that antimatter is injected into the subject is poppycock. We're a long way off from being able to produce or contain antimatter on a non-microscopic scale. The positron in this case only exists for a stunningly short period of time before it slams into the first electron it can find and both the positron and electron are annihilated.

Torben

19. ### MikebitsWell-Known Member

Joined:
May 24, 2008
Messages:
6,214
Likes:
174
Location:
San Diego, Ca
ONLINE
Hmm, interesting, as the law of thermodynamics states that nothing is created nor destroyed, so what becomes of these illusive subatomic mysteries?

20. ### TorbenWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 6, 2006
Messages:
2,507
Likes:
34
Location:
When the positron and electron meet, they mutually annihilate, emitting a pair of high-energy photons which travel outward in opposite directions, according to Wikipedia. The scanner is set to detect pairs arriving like that (within nanoseconds of each other) to eliminate false positives from random passing gamma photons which might run into its sensors.

So while the electron and positron are destroyed, it turns out that the ash from a positron-electron fire is gamma photons. Kinda like water is the ash from a hydrogen-water fire. Which is why water makes a lousy fuel: it's ash.

Torben

21. ### MikebitsWell-Known Member

Joined:
May 24, 2008
Messages:
6,214
Likes:
174
Location:
San Diego, Ca
ONLINE
Very cool... That makes sense...