Anybody interested in building HHO generators?
I'm keen on starting a serious discussion group of folks who share my enthusiasm for HHO alternative fuel generators.
Thus far there's only been one Instructable (Serge) and loads of YouTube videos, but most other sites either want to sell you plans or sell you a retail device. I'd like to start a club of sorts with folks who want to 'roll their own' but perhaps lack some of the electronics or other material fabrication techniques. We could help each other design & build stuff (like an hho generator for you car) and then post the how-to's here on Instructables.
Anybody interested?
Lomography Konstructor - World's First 35mm DIY SLR
Office Warfare Book on Sale Now
List of Upcoming Contests (updated 6/6)
Spanish translations of Instructables / Instructables traducidos al Espanol
JULY 2013 Build Night with SUGRU
High-current, electronic sword-fighting, fancy drink pouring, and more @ Makers Local 256 Build Night!
New Instructables Books for 2013
Souped Up: Projects to Make Everything Better [Book]
Backyard Rockets Book on Sale Now
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
Lets start off with “Hydroxy Gas”. These 2links is a primer. You can research from there, just do a little investigative work on your own. You are required to lift a finger and do some research and not just wait for everything to simply fall in your lap. Type in key names, references and go search. That s how I got all my patents and documents. Some websites simply help you get started on where to look.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/hydroxygas.htm
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/meyerswatercell.htm
Did your friends Warp Drive receive a US Govt gag order like Meyer? For National Secrecy?
Anyone who views this material. Please read it all and don’t skim past stuff. Its all important.
As you will find experts and critics rightly question things, but in the end also say, it’s the critics fault for not being completely honest either, that such reproducible tests have been performed on some claims and confirmed. Yet, still no open public disclosure. If you simply go read what you want to see, you will miss those important points.
Here is a link to find all Stan Meyers Patents. US, Canadian and European
Jump to bottom and Start with “International Evaluation Test Report”
http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/stanley-meyers-wfc-tec/patents-documents
Credible Sources who verified effects:
Stanley Meyer - WFC Demonstrations - ISNE 1993
Edmund Storms – Established Cold Fusion & Reproducible Results - IECEC 1993
I did just that, and read that "Panacea-BOCAF" offers "alternative medicine which like our nutritional research remains suppressed in our education system due to a conflict of interest".
Quite frankly, any website that claims to provide educational resources which could lead to someone putting corrosive substances on their body to cure themselves of Cancer, ought to provide their "University Graduates" with shiny new tin foil hats, and does not deserve a citation as a reputable source of information.
This is what can happen when people follow such ridiculously misguided advice...
uote:
Originally Posted by h20power
Like I said the WFC is NOT IMPORTANT it is the GAS PROCESSER that is the key to this technology.
Some numbers for you to think over:
Gasloine has a energy level of 4864 kJ/mol
H2 + 1/2O2 has an energy level of 285 kJ/mol
Now this is what happens when it passes through the Gas Processor:
1st ionozation level,
H 1312 + 1/2 O 1313.9 = 1968.85 kJ/mol
2nd for oxygen,
H 1312 + 1/2 O 3388.3 = 3006.15 kJ/mol
3rd for oxygen,
H 1312 + 1/2 O 5300.5 = 3962.25 kJ/mol
Now you can see just what the Gas Processor is doing. Note, depending on how far you ionize the Oxygen the energy levels keep going up to end up with this:
H 1312 + 1/2 O 84,078.0 = 43,351 kJ/mol. Now that's energy
If you get to any one of these energy states it will run your engine with ease. So, the key is to make the Gas Processor and make it to ionize the gases that go through too a energy state as far as you can so you can get these energy levels to put in the cumbustion chamber and ignite them. I suggest to make two of them one for the incoming air and the other for the hho from what every source you choose to get the hho from. Now you can see just how Stanley Meyer ran his 1.6L VW engine on just a 7L/min production rate.
Energy independence is now yours for the taking, enjoy,
h2opower.
Now I gave a lot of the math for the reaction already, but it was incomplete.
This math is just simple math of a first year chemistry student, algebra(though not error proof).
Water
2 H-H bonds and 1 0=0 bond are broken.
2(436) + 498 = +1370 kJ/mol. That is the energy it takes to break water down.
4 O-H bonds are formed when hydrogen and oxygen are ignited to form water.
4(-485) = -1836 kJ/mol
Summing the two processes: 1368 + (-1836) = -468 kJ/2mol or ~285 kJ/mol.
Now lets look at what happens when you add primed Oxygen gases to the equation.
1368 to break water down
now O(primed to 1st level 1314)-H = 2(-1096) = -2192 (only two bonds where formed due to oxygen is now single just O not O2).
Summing the two processes: H-H 2(436) + 1/2O .5(1313.9) = 1528.95 kJ/mol - 1836 kJ/mol = -307 kJ/mol. So a net 307 kJ/mol for the new reaction with the primed Oxygen gases, and remember gasoline has 4864 kJ/mol.
Note also that this is only Oxygens first energy level, the more electrons are striped the greater the energy yeild, example 2nd energy level for Oxygen is 3388 kJ/mol, this time you do the math.
Now I may have made a few mistakes but the way it works wont be hampered by my errors, so if it needs correction by all means do so.
That should help everyone to understand the importance of the Gas Processor,
h2opower.
People, facts are available but if your too lazy to do some investigative work on your part or not even follow suggestions on what others have already been able to reproduce and build your own cells, then you will never move past your current view.
I'm not opposed to research, I already said that I did, to investigate the validity of the source to which you first linked to. Call it what you want, but if the founding principles of the website you linked to defies even common sense (your words not mine), then there is no logical reason to investigate these links any further.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/meyerswatercell.htm
These are both commercial advertisements, not peer-reviewed evidence (and I wouldn't connect one of those generators to my car for all the tea in China - I prefer to live to the end of my journey.)
http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/stanley-meyers-wfc-tec/patents-documents
Oh, that is a fascinating insight into the sort of rubbish that can be patented - for instance, an "electrical particle generator" - check the diagram, and it's a simple step-up transformer with the magnetic core material encased in plastic. Radical stuff, LOL!
(Oh, and "Stanley Meyer" is the credible source that verified the work of "S Meyer"??)
Seriously, do you understand what the terms "verifiable" or "peer-reviewed" actually mean?
[knocks on laptop screen]
Hello? Are you there? Are you at all aware of the word "science" and what it actually means?
I have some homework for you -
1. Go and find out what the following terms mean;
> Reliable evidence
> Peer-reviewed
> Reputable journal
2. Find something to back up your claims which meets all those criteria.
(The gases are perfectly ordinary H2 and O2, not monatomic gases.)
Hmmmm....
Dollard claims that directly-observed phenomena are not real, and his best evidence for eather is a sketchy thought experiment (when other experimentalists have gone out of their way to do the experiments that should demonstrate the existence of the aether, with, obviously, negative results). He may mean well, but there are simple reasons why he struggles for funding.
Oh, and the same website claims "Tesla’s X-rays are different from the X-Rays we use today. Far more powerful. Far Safer, no radiation damage. Many other unexplored benefits".
It's a real disappointment to see such creative energies so badly misdirected...
- the electrical schematics are not even in question. They function as to their intended purpose individually to the whole process. If you are not trained in electrical theory, you have no basis to comment or certainly wait for some university or journal to sign off on. As they are in compliance with normal teaching. That would be like asking for every electronic circuit to be validated before believing each various superhetrodyne circuit is valid. Nonsense. Any student can evaluate the integrity of the circuit already using common knowledge learned and or circuit simulations. The circuits are not being contested period.
- whether water can be separated into it's constituents then is reasoned. And we already know this is a accepted fact the or you have to discard science and working principles already doing just this. Simple electrolysis would have to be invalidated in general for this to be wrong.
- whether water can be vibrated and stimulated in a resonate cavity then is all you have at this point to evaluate based on comammon science. Many processes in other fields base they're understanding and working principles from this fact. Sonoluminesence vibrates water and trapped gas bubbles injected in to the water. A well established fact would have to be also invalidated if it was not possible. Either by piezo mechanical vibration or electro static fields. The inventor of TV where Philo T. Farnsworth, using multipaction and his Fusor would have to be invalidated. So this portion of the functionality of the process is by extension valid.
- you are left then with only questioning whether the gases liberated can have electrons stripped from them in a controlled manner. This is required in far too many areas of science to list as paramount. It too as a basic principle and fully recognized process is also un questioned. And goes without saying.
- one is then finally brought to asking simple chemistry questions and physics questions as to the new energy levels of said treated and stimulated gases thermal energy levels in btu. This clearly shows that it can be very large. Considerably greater than gasoline.
- so, taking the entire sub parts on merit by extension the are based on comammon science, the process as a whole is fully expected to function as claimed.
Since not one aspect is in disagreement with accepted science.
Kiteman says -the Seriously, the Galileo argument, does not work -what science said about supersonic flight is irrelevant to what you claim about the basic laws of reality.
The mentioned processes are basic laws of reality. So what science or by what model are you approaching this argument? Its certainly not, the basic laws of reality.
I have provided more credible sources to your likings within only 4 pages I asked you to read. But read every sentence and dont gloss over saying rubbish.
If you have a problem with the sources mentioned, you simply contact that listed source and inquire from them on their comments and or research. Ask them directly.
If you are unwilling to investigate even that much on your own than I propose you are one of the individuals mentioned as to doing everything in your power to prevent this technology from being proliferated.
Both of you here have innocently asked for proof. When given or directed where to find it you balk. When asked to do a little discovery for yourself again you wine.
I have met stubborn critics in my day. Even with the friends I know and work with regarding WFC. But they were not so unwilling to look things up and view videos. They took an interest in what I was doing and was surprised. You guys disply extreme unwillingness to look for truth. Beyond that of a mere critic that is merely waiting for evidence. No critic behaves the way you guys behave. Even they would concede to viewing and reading for themselves.
As per claims. Show me where I can get evidence instead of hocus pocus data?
Trying to infer that all the demonstrations conducted on YouTube is hocus pocus is hardly warranted. As many of the are documented very well. Providing everything you need. To build a basic unit. With hundreds of ppl having success, I hardly think its a conspiracy to promote bogus science. Besides all you have too do is pick one demonstration and copy exactly and prove them to be a liar. End of story.
As I see it. The burden of proof is in your court. Not mine.
pancea is not itself a source of course. Its only to show the patents and earlier work in this field that always gets sidelined due to monetary reasons.
You cannot be an impartial critic without looking over everything.
did you read the independent test comments regarding the various patents? And the conclusion that his patent was indeed fully verified? From professionals? No because you were too quick to return here with your rants.
You can say whatever you choose but other people will take the time to read.
so you only serve putting yourself in a box. Your not stopping anything.
So, why present it when asked for a source?
"You cannot be an impartial critic without looking over everything. "
How true. Yet, when we ask to look at "everything" (the evidence), you accuse us of being lazy because we have not spent time googling for links you [should] already possess, or because we have not spent time building our own units from plans we have to purchase from the advertising links* you keep posting.
(*So many of your links are to advertisements or commercial sites, it's a wonder your account hasn't been closed for spamming!)
Back on Earth however, a clearer picture of Meyer's can be found in the Ohio court that he was summons to where his "technology" was examined. It seems that the investors that paid Meyers $25,000 dollars, were angered by the fact that Meyers made repeated "lame excuses" for being unable to show up for independent testing of his "water fuel cells", and they wanted their money back. And the Ohio courts agreed, finding Meyer's guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the investors their money.
So you are correct! "You cannot be an impartial critic without looking over everything".
Government coverup? Nope. If the U.S. Government and Military took such fascination in Meyer's "technology" and perhaps had him 'murdered' as a result, they would be using water fuel cells already. The U.S. is consuming mass amounts of oil, and must import most of it (which makes them heavily reliant upon other countries). It serves NO logical purpose to deny alternative fuel sources which would undoubtably improve the economy.
Meyer's murdered? Nope. A coroner found that he died of a cerebral aneurysm, so unless conspiracy theorists want to go on record to defame the coroner and the Ohio Coroner's office, then such stories that Meyer's was poisoned is no more credible than the "technology" that Meyer's is purportedly to have created.
If you still feel that credible information is "everywhere" and free of hocus pocus, then by all means, provide the links and prove us wrong! I refuse to take blind faith on this matter, no more than I am willing to accept citations from sources which you even agree defies common sense.
It clearly documented within those documents that I provided. You must have conviently skipped that section. It's clearly documented. 100%.
So, as to the silly hypothesis that everyone would have it already us nonsense.
It clearly documented within those documents that I provided. You must have conviently skipped that section. It's clearly documented. 100%.
So, as to the silly hypothesis that everyone would have it already us nonsense.
It clearly documented within those documents that I provided. You must have conviently skipped that section. It's clearly documented. 100%.
So, as to the silly hypothesis that everyone would have it already us nonsense.
Clearly presented proof? Show me ONE instance that there is "clearly presented proof" and I won't say another word on this topic!
What does/doesn't constitute clearly documented proof? The same criteria for which is accepted in a court of law. Hearsay and conjecture is NOT proof or evidence.
"as to the silly hypothesis"
Explain how removing a financial burden, (where you must rely on other countries to supply you with your needs), would cause "potential financial undue duress"?
Go too the link I have provided at top of this forum for all patents and references. Find the WFC memo 11a. Read pages 4&5, 14&15. Here you will find names of universites and countries that have 100%duplicated verified this process.
it indeed based upon already accepted science fellas. It is you guys who are not in alignment with physics.
And also due to the fact that i had been working on a number of projects for my own need to prove out various claims. For instance, building circuits that power small devices bases off the "Aramenko Plug". Which i have verified for myself. Also "Konstantin Meyl-transciever". Which i have also built and have verified for myself. Both crude but well enough to validate.
Lastly, my interest has switched toward power production means and using electric motors instead of Internal Combustion Engines.
As for Konstantin Meyl, the phrase "Neutrino power is available as an inexhaustible form of energy due to a remarkable overunity effect" in connection with his work is enough for anybody who paid attention at school past the age of fifteen to completely dismiss his claims in a hail of derisive scorn and thrown peanuts. It's not even wrong!
(Major warning signal - any "theory" that starts off by complaining that other theories have been actively suppressing it is already admitting that it doesn't actually have any proper evidence.)
I don't have the site handy, but also Google Alexander Frolov "powering a load via potential alone. It is based from Chernetsky earlier work.
While in agree totally with you Regards any claims in overunity. The Laws are upheld in all circumstances. Understandably, most ppl are looking at from the basic view of, i put x amount of power in and am getting 4xpower out. What it costs me versus what i have available. We both know, this or any excess energy must come from somewhere else. The average Joe, see's this as overunity. Too the scientific mind it certainly is not overunity. An explanation can be found.
I certainly had my doubts about Konstantin Meyl's Transciever. I am not sure i agree with all that he says about it's functioning. They're may yet be another explanation as to it's functioning. I was able to transmit pwr from trsmtr to rcvr at over 9ft with only 2v input enough to drive the led. The voltage rosé to almost doublé at the rcvr side. Both coils and top loads were identical. I even reversed the operation sent power from the other coil. Same increase of voltage observed. The current being roughly unchanged. From a signal generator.
As the distance was increased, the freq had to be readjusted. I believe it behaved more like an air capacitor at first. But this doesn't work out. Simply adjusting so the alternating potential is at maximum, ie antinodes at the two separate terminals, worked best. Then max power would return, otherwise it drops off. As far as scavaging? The standing wave may collect free charges in the open air and bring them into the system. I will leave that aspect to the brainacs to figure the how and why power is increased. Totally against our reasoning. It's not something so basic that it should be dissmissed without experiments. It truly functions in ways totally unaccounted for by current theory.
But it too, is in no way overunity. Energy is coming from an external source together with what you input. Takenly together is more output than input by the user.
And, so far, all those explanations have been variations of;
> Hidden batteries.
> Hidden power leads.
> Incompetant use of metering.
> Wilfully deceitful use of metering.
> Lies.
its called experiments.certainly you are referring to some other claims?
No batteries involved with avramenko systems functioning.
no hidden batts in Meyl transponder. Of which topic are you referring?
As I keep saying, you have presented no evidence to support any of your claims.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."(Christopher Hitchens) Ergo, your claims are dismissed.
Explain how please.
Whats irritating, is you and I both know you have seen some of the documents I will post and are playing ignorant. It impossible for you to have ventured onto only 3hho forums and never been given patents and circuit drawings.
let alone your own goggling on this topic. Including watching youtube videos.
So whenever you wish to stop playing games we can talk sensible.
let alone your own goggling on this topic. Including watching youtube videos. "
As I have told you before, I do not use HHO forums. I am at a loss to understand how you "know" what documents I have seen - are you now claiming to be psychic?
The only "game" being played is you playing hide-and-seek with the evidence - all you need to do to shut me up is provide a link to the peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal that backs up your claims, yet you have not done so.
As I keep repeating, you are the one making the claims, so it's your job to persuade me that you are right. That takes proper evidence, so we'll see...
You did make a Good point however, that most cases of this nature are confused by improper measurement methods. Which is often true.
After the holidays i will reduplicate with this in mind. The goal is to power an rc car or boat. A fixed object is very easy as I have already done this successfully.
One side note: Tesla's earlier patent was virtually the exact setup only demonstrating sending of power via a single wire. Between the two resonator coils. Later, he realised that you didn't even need that wire under specificaties conditions. The next evolution of already working system.
TODAY power companies utilize that method as What's called SWER. It is discribed different of course. Basically that ground completes the circuit.
TESLA merely opened the circuit is all.
No amount of discussion or posted videos will suffice many critics. As i have witnessed with other concepts that i have experimented with and duplicated. They are still reasoned that its nonsense. For these individuals no amount if evidence will suffice.
Due to the fact these individuals themselves never even bother to actually build anything for themselves but merely rely on textbook knowledge and feel they don't need to experiment. This was Teslas greatest complaint towards Einstein. As he replaced experimentation with thought processes. He cane up with a way things should work in theory before experimenting and in some cases entirely.
Ni matter what you think you know, you cannot replace experiments. At best the experiment will chalk up one more for your theory or illustrate weaknesses in the accepted theories.
As it should be.
For these individuals no amount if evidence will suffice.
False.
Properly-acquired evidence is what will satisfy the skeptics. Measure the input and the output.
Unfortunately, no electrolysis cell subjected to rigorous testing has ever stood up to the claims made for it as an overunity device, and the most vigorous promoters of HHO, the ones who make the wildest claims, and most loudly complain that the technology is being "suppressed" by some sort of conspiracy, they never allow their devices to be subjected to proper scrutiny.
Can we guess why, boys and girls?
Andrija Puaharich as a scientist gives the modern chemical equations of just how more energy is released and specifically, that increase of energy in btu's as the energy consumed to split the water. And not contested by his contemporaries
"Tested by a man who works for a company that did wirk for NASA" does not mean "it works". It could easily mean "it was switched on by a man who laid some asphalt in the visitor car park at Cape Kennedy". If it worked, provide a link to the peer-reviewed paper, published in a reputable journal, that describes exactly how it achieves overunity.
Come on, if all patents didn't require verifiable proof then every conceivable concept would be patented by businesses in an endeavor to eventually lay claim to the fool who actually succedes in making them rich since they would already have all bases covered.
Meyer method of electrolysis using hv low current as a real reproducible way to split water? That it does so with far less energy consumed? What exactly.?
As this to me and others serious about it recognize.
Now we have a way to get closer at carrying your gas station without you so to speak
It is not hard to beat the efficiency of simple dc.
While using alternative ways such as pulse dc, efficiency is increased lowering your input demand to achieve the same thing.
Doing this allows for a wonderful phenomena to be exploited. Known as "multipaction ". This increases efficiency even higher. When energetic oxygen combines with hydrogen more btu is released.
You want a source. Google Puharich fuel cell method. He has a paper showing the way more energy in heat is obtained through achieving that condition economically.
Do not tell me to google, provide the link yourself.
Remember; extraordinary claims required extraordinary levels if evidence.
Dont be so lazy. Either you are intersted or not. Dont claim things don't exist simply someone doest put everything in your lap.
What I dispute, and you have not supported, is that;
> The gases produced are in any way different from normal hydrogen and oxygen.
> The gases are monatomic.
> That less energy is required to split the water molecules than with normal methods of electrolysis.
> That burning the resultant gases produces more energy than the gases of normal electrolysis
(The two previous points resulting, of course, in overunity)
> That the flame is somehow different to the flame of normal hydrogen (eg melting steel, whilst leaving flesh undamaged)
I am also annoyed at the insistence of many "HHO" believers on referring to an electrolysis cell as a fuel cell. A fuel cell takes in hydrogen and oxygen gas, releasing water and electricity directly, without combustion.
Clear enough?
Give us the evidence - patent numbers, peer-reviewed data - or admit that you have nothing to show for your claims except a lot of glass and wire.
I witnessed this first hand at firebird race track in Idaho.
The HHO gas filled a large drum that was setup to look like piston and cylinder.
as the gas detonated by spark plugs in the drum the lower arm lifted a weight as the cylinder imploded. Yeah, I would say thats rather different.
gas can be arranged so there is only an expansive explosion.
I never saw burning of hydrogen causing radioactive materials too quickly alter they're halflife either as has HHO gas demonstrated.
Burning a relatively low mass of H2 & O2 in a large surface-area container, at ambient temperature and pressure will produce very little heat & pressure-rise, and will very quickly lose that heat to the metal of the cylinder & piston.
That means the products of the burning - water vapour - will condense to liquid water, dropping dramatically in volume, reducing the prssure inside the cylinder, allowing air-pressure to push the piston inwards.
That's not "different", it's an incredibly inefficient way of harnessing the energy used to generate the H2 & O2 in the first place, and tells me two things:
- The man promoting it as a new power source was a charlatan.
- All those who fell for it lack the basic level of scientific education to pursue this line of research.
It is a telling fact that the vast majority of HHO believers are American - it is a direct result of the failings caused by the unwarranted influence of right-wing politicians on the education system (prevent your children questioning creationism, you prevent them questioning anything. Teach them to accept one fairy story by adding a thin veneer of scientific language, they'll accept anything that sounds even vaguely polysyllabic).We in america, already can buy off the shelf water welders. Using this gas.
And is not disputed as being implosive. Furthermore, has even demonstrated that radioactive material can have its half life altered to a stable state quickly while exposed to this flame.
That aspect alone causes all kinds of monkey wrenches into what's believed to be a constant. Some even suggest this makes carbon dating not so much of a a accurate tool after all.
Oxygen produced by electrolysis does not, cannot lack electrons.
Oxygen can only be found in a form where is acts relatively positive when it is chemically combined with fluorine.
You ought to be careful making claims about "water welders" - if hydrogen and oxygen burned "implosively", then striking the flame to a water welder would immediately cause the flame to be drawn back into the gas supply with absolutely catastrophic consequences. You cannot have it both ways.
"And is not disputed as being implosive."
Yes, it can. I am disputing it. Provide evidence to prove me wrong, if you can.
"Furthermore, has even demonstrated that radioactive material can have its half life altered to a stable state quickly while exposed to this flame."
Oh, my, the claims get wilder and wilder! Is this another claim you are going to expect me to swallow whole, or can you provide a link to the evidence this time (remember, you claim all these things are proven facts, so you should easily be able to provide a link to a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal).
"That aspect alone causes all kinds of monkey wrenches into what's believed to be a constant."
It might, if you could provide any evidence...
"Some even suggest this makes carbon dating not so much of a a accurate tool after all."
"Some"? Who is this "some"? I know people who suggest that the Queen of England is actually a reptilian alien, part of a global conspiracy to rule the world. "Some say" isn't even hear-say!
--------------------
With every post, your claims get wilder, your evidence gets scarcer and your credibility gets more meagre...
As for oxygen loosing electrons. Of course it can. They are stripped of after the electrolysis has been done to separate the gases. Both Meyer and Puharich does this. You will realize what your missing when you follow his chemistry equations showing this exchange. I only have it in pdf. Let me try to find were I got it.
Thanks by the way for posting material. I was able to view my files but I couldn't get it to attach. I will try again.
Yeah, sorry for the bad grammar. Partly out of bad habit, partly due to using my cellphone to post from. This darn adaptive text is really frustrating.
By the way I do apologize for the exchanges. My only goal is to produce gas from water economically so that it can be used as an alternative fuel.
and again it doesn't take much effort to achieve that aim better than old school methods.
Did you get a chance to view JLN. Naudins website? This is one place that I have used over the years to attempt duplications. Good place to look over.
Are you familiar with the Bitorroid? Already seen and submitted to MIT.
It powers a load through reactive power. Yes thats correct. reactive power consumed on input side while real power use consumed on load side.
Sonoluminesence when first discovered had over a dozen theories as to explain. Now its down to just a few but even these guys won't put there stamp on they're theory. Hmmm something this basic still puzzles.
I work in the semiconductor industry with dry etch equipment. I service these million dollar tools. Have also spent a few years in refrigeration.
am degreed. But I have learned a few things that at one time I would have dismissed completely and now have questions. As some projects I have duplicated does not fit my education explanation. Yet work to some degree as some of the so called wild claims. Trust me I know how it sounds.
I am no pioneer and everything I have done was from attempts to put too rest some claims only to my supprise lead to more questions. Education definitely has some aspects wrong this much I have learned. What I found in the years journey is that I'm not alone even for engineers with greater credentials than myself.
go down this road and you find numerous educated ppl who don't ascribe to every aspect of how our current theory are explained along with our math.
This one does not learn while in school. You walk away from your education and and degree as if all of science is in unanimous agreement with how we explain the world around us from a physics view only to be surprised many highly educated ppl don't.
Thank God for that or we would never have moved out of the last two centuries.
many breakthroughs in science come from ppl not even an expert in that field but stumble upon it. If the experts had it figured out already why didn't they discover those discoveries? Such as in optics. Thanks to Raymond rife.
Dr kendal who worked with him almost got lost his medical license because he discovered the way to grow a bacteria culture outside of living flesh. And was attacked viscously to recant as science of the day said was impossible.
Thanks to him we modernized medicine. Rife self taught greatly added to optics.
Bottom line. Ppl loose site that any accepted theory is just that a theory. Until something better comes along that can reproduce and account for our phenomena areas simpler. The current model will suffice. Not by any means that its the end all on the topic.
You keep claiming there is evidence, then you fail to present it, distracting yourself with the fallacy that other areas if science were modified, then any challenge to mainstream science must be correct.
You utterly fail to notice that the successful challenges were only successful because they presented large amounts of verifiable evidence that was properly peer-reviewed.
One erroneous gem stood out;
" Ppl loose site that any accepted theory is just that a theory. "
There is no such thing as "just a theory" in science. Anything that is referred to as a theory has been tested to destruction, and nobody has been able to provide a better way of explaining reality.
Gravity is "just a theory".
Evolution is "just a theory".
The conservation if energy is "just a theory".
The claims for "HHO" are just a hypothesis, and one for which you have consistently failed to present any evidence.
I can here you now back then arguing it can't work with science quotes of the day. Lol.
There are tests done by ppl on youtube as well. Jnnaudin. Site.
Problem is you choose to doubt everything and not try to build anything period.
Wow has our educational system reallly declined that poorly that you are unwilling to investigate through experimentation? Big difference between you as a H. S. teacher and the teachers I had in high school. My teachers fostered thinking even if it went against the grain. They would explain why it wouldn't work but still be positive and encourage you to test the rules.
Same as Dr. Bifield Brown to the Thomas Townsend. He encouraged The lad, to explore. This was an area that should not have worked. And the scientist was a colleague of Einstein. That led too two new discoveries.
Big difference between him and you as Teachers.
Dr. Andrija Puharich was a well respected scientist in the science community.
To claim that his fuel cell essentially the same as meyers version is bogus is plain stupidity. The man knows more than the both of us combined and then some with a record.
Why ask for patents that you don't believe they are worth the paper their printed on in the first place? You asked so there you go.
Truth is i do remember running into you on another forum. I will find it and post. You already had the patents as I stated earlier. But since I called you out, now your playing dumb.
An experiment doesn't have to be performed by UCLA to warrant that it works. There is more than enough proof available just within youtube alone. These are not all conducted by amateurs but with ppl more credentialed than yourself so don't be foolish.
Either experiment for yourself or wait to pass judgement.
If Thats not good enough, this is what I would recommend.
Stick your head back into the sand. If that is what helps you sleep at night. So that you can teach the same material to your next class kmowing the world is still the same.
Consider; "Doctors said Dave would never walk after the accident, but he proved them wrong. They tell me I cannot grow back the leg that was eaten by a shark. They were wrong about Dave, so they're wrong about me."
That is the exact situation you are in.
Same as Dr. Bifield Brown to the Thomas Townsend.
Good grief, who told you that the Byfield-Brown affect was not supposed to work? Townsend noticed it, and explained it. I used the effect to build an electric motor out of plastic bottles. EHD has absolutely nothing to do with electrolytic over-unity.
And to claim that I am trying to stop such work is not just wrong, it is bordeline defamation - I keep demanding evidence, which requires that you (or somebody) does the experiments to gather the data.
Why ask for patents that you don't believe they are worth the paper their printed on in the first place?
So that I could examine them. I now have, and found them wanting.
"Truth is i do remember running into you on another forum. I will find it and post. You already had the patents as I stated earlier. But since I called you out, now your playing dumb."
That will be interesting...
"An experiment doesn't have to be performed by UCLA to warrant that it works."
True. It does, however, have to be performed with scientific rigour, and recorded in enough detail that the data can be assessed by third parties.
"There is more than enough proof available just within youtube alone. These are not all conducted by amateurs but with ppl more credentialed than yourself so don't be foolish."
Thank you, you just made my day - "it's on YouTube so it must be true!" Oh, my word, I actually laughed out loud when I read that (and when did YouTube users start posting proof of their qualifications?).
"Either experiment for yourself or wait to pass judgement."
I am waiting to pass judgement. I have been waiting for a long time, but you consistently fail to supply the evidence upon which to pass judgement.
Yes from YouTube.your attempt to lump that site into the crackpot pile is false. Because other sites have also replicated some devices as demo on youtube.
Besides there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of place to share as ppl like yourself.
Yo make darn sure of that. Too lazy or inept to build an attempt
1. So what? Where's the EVIDENCE?
...YouTube..."
2. The one-many-fallacy again; some videos on YouTube are true, therefore all the videos that I want to be true are true. (If they are so good, why have you not provided a link?)
"Besides there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of place to share..."
Post a working model here.
Submit your properly-reviewed data to any of dozens of reputable science journals.
(PS: Finishing your posts with unfounded personal insults does not make you right.)
You don't get YouTube in your neck of the woods? Seriously , you cannot go pull up a few on your own that resemble even the most credible layout to your liking?
Dude, with each one liners of show me, solidly shows what kind of purpose you linger on this site for, and its most definetly not answers.
You don't get YouTube in your neck of the woods? Seriously , you cannot go pull up a few on your own that resemble even the most credible layout to your liking? "
No, I cannot find any credible videos of HHO generators on YouTube. That is why I asked you to link to the ones you seem to know about.
"Dude, with each one liners of show me, solidly shows what kind of purpose you linger on this site for, and its most definetly not answers."
If I don't want answers, why do I keep asking you for them??
Read all his memos and tech briefs. Look at the sources or even querry the proffesional sources directly about their results that they claim worked. Go find sites where crude examples are being built. Watch videos of units in operation.
For starters. Rather than thumbing over bits and pieces.
You post links to adverts, you post links to newsletters from interested parties, and you say "go and look at YouTube", then you accuse me of being lazy.
Until you can actually post some actual EVIDENCE, I am done with you. When you think you have some actual evidence (remember; peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal), then drop me a PM.
Until then, I'll file you under "Believer in Woowoo".
If you want a more sympathetic audience, a brief google (your favourite advice) reveals:
HHO Forums
Alternative energy forum
David Icke forum
(That last one is probably right up your street. Enjoy.)
Complete false and misleading assertions, that no evidence has been given is a bold faced lie. Read through all the material documents for yourselves. And not just these 4 pages, if your honestly curious about this technology.
t's a good job I decided to monitor you. Just because I have given up on debating with you until you provide the evidence for your claims, that does not mean you can tell lies about me or about what you have provided.
Reminder: the evidence required is a link to a proper peer-reviewed paper in a reputable science journal.
What you have actually provided so far:
- Bald assertions.
- Logical fallacies.
- Accusations of laziness
- Accusations of attempts at suppression.
- Accusations of conspiracy.
- Defamatory personal comments.
- Links to adverts for plans.
- Links to newsletters written by interested (ie biased) parties.
- And, now, accusations that I have been lying.
"What is asserted without evidence can be similarly dismissed.""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The evidence has been given as you asked. It can be found on those few pages I asked you to read .. it gives the proffesional sources testify to its validity ..
Mind you all research tests and conducted by multiple research groups at usually several centers or university prior to ending up in a joirnal. Waiting for that does not diminish the fact research from respected universities has not been completed and posted their findings. Proof is available.
Secondly, the entire process is already within science. The various aspects are individually already used in one capacity or another today. There is nothing unscientific about whats proposed.
NO, it has not. What you asked us to read was a "newsletter" written by a man who was found GUILTY of FRAUD in a court of law.
You also rudely asked me, "What part of the clearly presented proof about this technology being placed on secrecy by US Gov't, under potential financial undue duress did you miss?"
Again, you have failed to answer my request for ONE instance of verifiable proof to that accusation! Just because a man (found guilty of fraud) says it happened, doesn't make it so.
You should have also noted in the same bogus newsletter you cited, that Meyer's said "Earlier, there was enormous foreign opposition to the Water Fuel Cell technology; now, we're receiving enormous support from both the United States and foreign countries who have recognized the viability of the Water Fuel Cell technology and want to bring the technology to the marketplace."
That newsletter was written almost 20 years ago! If there was such "enormous support", then why would YOU say that it would bring "potential financial undue duress" to the U.S.??? AND if the technology actually worked why is it not being used??? Could it be because it was proven in a court of law to NOT work??? And that's why Meyer's was found GUILTY of "gross and egregious fraud"???
The lawsuit was over the company bein formed to market the WFC injector. And wanting their money. Obviously this only helps to enforce the gag.
The newsletter lists, professional sources who tested the claims with their findings. Whether it was pro meyers letter, doesn't change the fact independent confirmation was conducted. You have the names and can contact them directly if you wanted. These are universities and respected sources. But you and I both know you won't bother.
Point is, you guys are not truly interested in the facts.
lastly, I posit once more that no aspect of the process is outside of accepted science. So what part is considered woowoo?
I suppose they're test doesn't qualify? Dozens of tests with similar results all over The net? Hmm. Yeah your right all of them are scammers I suppose? Done by incompetent individuals? Every last one. Not perfected but illustrating that the process is sound. That a scientist patented essentially the same thing a few years earlier that is very well recognized. Yeah, you must be right he's a fool.
Do you realize how you sound asking repeatedly for evidence when I showed you where to view it?
And most important have distinguished myself from you by encouraging experimenting for oneself? You do realize ppl here will go read for themselves?
Some will decide to build a model? You don't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in your crumbling dam to stop innovation.
I never claimed to be an expert. What I learned was through what others freely shared and through duplicating to some degree tests.
Seeing is definitely believing.
@the difference between you Sir, and me is I constantly encourage replication. As you won't be happy until you decide to prove it for yourself by experiment.
You have already demonstrated that no test conducted thus far is worthy.
By the way. It doesn't cost very many "pounds" to build.
My first was from scraps. When I got some gas. I bought SS.
the only real cost.
So, once again here we are asking why Sir, do you even waste your time on this forum if not to cause ppl to stop in they're tracks. You offer zero on a topic you seem to enjoy.
For example, from the material you have seen. Including videos on and patents. When a a forum is opened for the explicit purpose to iron out things you offer nothing but contempt. Never once have you, being a teacher mind you. Offered to anyone, well I personally don't believe any of it and here is why? And inform them on what others have done and claimed worked for them. By giving information that could be built from to start.
Nope. Not one peep from you. Completely silent. In fact nothing you do here is toward the reason the post was started. Asking again, Just exactly why are you here? Awe, we already know why.
A teacher that doesn't encourage experimenting is a sad thing. And understand that it can be put to rest very easily. So my hope, is your not really a teacher because thats terrible way to raise the next generation.
As you so fondly like to do, lets put the shoe on the other foot.
specifically within accepted theory, explain what parts of either Meyers or Puharich system cannot work. Resources pls. As to the following :
molecule cannot be polarly aligned as done?
The pulse circuit doesn't step charge a cap?
Or a true resonant circuit in Puharichs Or Meyers other patent. Steam generator patent work?
That physics somehow prohibits stripping of electrons off The liberated gases?
These should be good. As far as the circuit basic functionality is completely in line with nearly every electrical engineering textbook in print today.
Yet, you to Sir, seem to actually goe against commonly accepted things.
Correct, they don't qualify, because you have not given the data, and have not described how any data was collected.
"Do you realize how you sound asking repeatedly for evidence when I showed you where to view it?"
I sound boring, I know, but I will keep asking until you fulfill it - posting adverts is not presenting evidence.
I repeat: I am asking for reliably collected, peer-reviewed evidence from a reputable science journal.
"You don't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in your crumbling dam to stop innovation."
You are not paying attention. I want the experiments to happen, I encourage it, but I expect them to be performed properly, and the evidence collected properly, and presented properly.
"A teacher that doesn't encourage experimenting is a sad thing"
How am I discouraging experimentation? All I am asking is that those who claim these devices work present the evidence, just as I would ask a old child to show me a table of results after they perform an experiment.
"So my hope, is your not really a teacher because thats terrible way to raise the next generation."
What is wrong with demanding proof? Why are you so against the presentation of evidence? You seem to think that because you tell me that "somebody on YouTube" has done it, I have to immediately believe you?
"...explain what parts of either Meyers or Puharich system cannot work..."
Yet again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the basics of scientific methodology.
I do not have to prove the mainstream paradigm. It is the generally accepted state of things.
Anybody who wishes to overturn the paradigm, such as they did with the structure of the atom, with the mechanisms of inheritance, with evolution, with plate tectonics, with the heliocentric Solar System, they all have to provide swathes of evidence that they are right.
Get it? You are claiming things that are the antithesis of the Laws of Thermodynamics, so you are required to provide the evidence.
Remember, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed as easily.
Several conducted in that forum as well as others I have provided that do as well.
These give the following. Complete electrical schematic used. Nature of configuration. Real time measure of volts and current at input. Showing gas produced. Showing scope screen shots. Measure liter per minute obtained.
How can you possibly declare. Theres no data to review?
I have given you your blessed university sources. Go read them in the the HHO news letter 11a. Pages 4&5 and 14&15.
You never direct anyone to sources available on the subject matter. Whether you personally believe them or not. Every word from you has been to try and convince ppl this process is without scientific vigor. Which is absolutely not true.
Rather it is already recognized as completely in line with accepted science. As many proffesional sources testify.
But it's so easy to prove me wrong - show us the rigour*, show us the evidence.
Rather it is already recognized as completely in line with accepted science. As many proffesional sources testify.
So many, yet you still cannot direct us to these sources.
- the electrical schematics are not even in question. They function as to their intended purpose individually to the whole process. If you are not trained in electrical theory, you have no basis to comment or certainly wait for some university or journal to sign off on. As they are in compliance with normal teaching. That would be like asking for every electronic circuit to be validated before believing each various superhetrodyne circuit is valid. Nonsense. Any student can evaluate the integrity of the circuit already using common knowledge learned and or circuit simulations. The circuits are not being contested period.
- whether water can be separated into it's constituents then is reasoned. And we already know this is a accepted fact the or you have to discard science and working principles already doing just this. Simple electrolysis would have to be invalidated in general for this to be wrong.
- whether water can be vibrated and stimulated in a resonate cavity then is all you have at this point to evaluate based on comammon science. Many processes in other fields base they're understanding and working principles from this fact.
Sonoluminesence vibrates water and trapped gas bubbles injected in to the water. A well established fact would have to be also invalidated if it was not possible. Either by piezo mechanical vibration or electro static fields.
The inventor of TV
where Philo T. Farnsworth, using multipaction and his Fusor would have to be invalidated. So this portion of the functionality of the process is by extension valid.
- you are left then with only questioning whether the gases liberated can have electrons stripped from them in a controlled manner. This is required in far too many areas of science to list as paramount. It too as a basic principle and fully recognized process is also un questioned. And goes without saying.
- one is then finally brought to asking simple chemistry questions and physics questions as to the new energy levels of said treated and stimulated gases thermal energy levels in btu. This clearly shows that it can be very large. Considerably greater than gasoline.
- so, taking the entire sub parts on merit by extension the are based on comammon science, the process as a whole is fully expected to function as claimed.
Since not one aspect is in disagreement with accepted science.
Give your sources. Link to the proper, peer-reviewed papers in reputable science journals.
NOT adverts.
NOT newsletters from interested parties.
NOT "stop being lazy, go and look at youtube".
Then go here since your too lazy to actually do some investigation.
Goto this site again in http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/stanley-meyers-wfc-tec/patents-documents/
Read WFC news letter 11a, pages 4&5 and 14&15.
Which provides university sources and countries that have 100%duplicated and or confirm the process as accepted science fellas.
It is you gentleman that are going against accepted physics.
Let me repeat myself yet again: REPUTABLE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL - a poor-quality copy of a twenty year old newsletter published by an inherently-biased source (ie authored and edited by the same person who is promoting the device) is not reliable evidence.
Accepted physics says that "HHO" (over-unity through electrolysis) does not work.
You have consistently failed to prove otherwise.
Are you that lazy? Your not interested in truth. Who you trying to kid.
The working circuit in myers most replicated cell is 100%a based from common electronics. That is what I do at work. Portions of the circuit are entirely on an ic chip. Available and in everyday use. Do you question the fact the circuit can cause a rising unipolar voltage? If so, you don't understand that that is basic electrical Engineering. Is it that water can be aligned between electrical electrodes? As this too is basic physics. That part of Meyers claim isn't even in debate by science as already taught today. If you have a problem with this then its you who don't realize that your not even in line with accepted science.
The confusion for some of my colleagues was his resonance claims when the diode prevented oscillation to take place as shown. The rest is not in dispute.
Without having the patent schematics or tech briefs in front of me I cant illustrate. Tucked away in some pages it is clear to electrical engineering that one depiction is an parallel LCR tank circuit. In another no diode is used at all. Same as Puharich which does truly resonate as even a student in electrical engineering kmows. It's common knowledge. The spacing of the plates forms a waveguide. Again very basic electrical engineering. Used everyday.
the water is vibrated. Again in alignment with physics principles. No mystery.
Stripping electrons from the gases is not even new. It too is perfectly in accordance to already accepted science. The Dry Etch plasma tools I maintain do this as a controlled process for making chips.
I repeat myself. Why bother even coming to an HHO forum period?
You have zero interest and don't believe anything or at leasr protray.
Mind you, Meyers system did have a gag order by the USGovt. It in the docs. On the link I already provided. Certainly the oil industry doesn't want it common knowledge.
You have zero basis for even being here except to do what you do well is convince young minds to not even waste the time to build from patents and others and see for themselves. Thats your only motive.
If it was simply and innocently bases on evidence as you claim. You would look at the more reputable sites and most definitely duplicate for yourself.
Seeing how you have zero interest in doing anything, that leads back to you being a a proffesional disinformation agent.
To everyone else on this forum, I sincerely apologize for enduring all this material. You have to experiment plain and simple. Get help if its not your expertise but make an attempt
to I promise you won't be disappointed.
I keep demanding your evidence. I want you to stay focussed on the task and question at hand, that of presenting your data that proves "HHO" generators do all they claim.
The distraction is you, talking about Tesla, sonoluminescence or conspiracies.
By telling me that I have to do the experiments for myself, find my own data, that tells me two things:
1. You have not any data of your own that proves the system works.
2. You do not know of anybody else that has the required level of evidence.
Oh, you keep saying that people have proven it, but, in reality, all you present as evidence are adverts and instructions to "google it" (when you don't even spell the names of the people or their devices properly, googling is almost impossible).
a) The evidence requested
b) Relevance (what the heck does sonoluminescence have to do with electrolysis??)
It would take me uneccessary time to go pull all this for you when you have a pc. If you are honestly curious please check it out. Posting all of these, is simply fruitless. As it gets us way off the topic. I only did to illustrate science is not as solid as you make it sound. And yes, will be further changed as we move foward. Exactly as history already shows us.whether you bother to take the time to research any of the stuff I have mentioned here, someone surely will.
you dont have to have exact address to find it. Simple googlinng will get you there.
You made the claims, so it is your responsibility to back them up by presenting the evidence. That is how science works.
On a topic about "HHO", it is not off-topic for me to ask for evidence that the claims you make about "HHO" are correct.
"With respect", if you cannot be bothered to provide your evidence, I cannot be bothered to ascribe you any credibility, and will continue to question your claims until such time as the evidence is presented.
Heck are you aware that even mathematically the bumble bee was considered not to be able to fly yet we all know it does. Same for when the first helicopter flew. At one time prior it was believed it couldn't stay aloft. Of course today we fully understand but not prior. Do some history.
If science was so flawless and worked out. With todays level of science there should be no question to how Sonoluminesence functions concretely. And yet we wait in spite of all mans understanding for an answer that even the authors are sure of.
Incidentally, whenever you have science where one set of rules apply in general but a modified set applies to answer a phenomena then that fact alone is illustrating that you are adding missing something in your model.
One set of rules should apply equally across the board.science has always been resistant to change often from stubborn and proud individuals.
Because they tend to view they're subject as being the pinnacle, the teacher and cant have someone with little or no training possibly show them something new.
Pride
You keep making this same, very basic, error.
You cannot assume that, because you know of simplified popular (and incorrect) examples where science changed the way they modelled a situation, that somehow means that anybody who disagrees with modern science is automatically right.
In all your examples (or, at least, the correct ones - nobody ever said AC was impossible, or that bumble bees should not be able to fly), the model was only changed after large amounts of reliable, peer-reviewed evidence was gathered and tested.
That is what I am expecting from you.
(And your final paragraph is just wrong, and has been for about 200 years.)
Incidentally, the man made many discoveries and was the most respected electrical genius of 1900s. In many american newsletters and official magazines of some time only to vanish to obscurity after his wireless power patents.
Hmmm. Went from recognized almost God status to a nobody. Fully recognized as expert in ac, ac motors. Designed niagra falls system. Exray. The first radio. Per US Supreme court. Flourescent bulb. First remote controlled boat. For US the Navy. Radar. Capturing atmospheric energy as a viable power source. Verified by germany prior to WWII.
And somehow he is a fool when it comes to wireless power?
How convenient ...