Instructables

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?

1-100 of 499Next »
Kunadude1 year ago
I located . a link that will provide you with the Documents & Patents. Took me some time, as I had to fnd all I have over years of searching. Mine are pdfs, other docs. Here you go.

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
Posts from other individuals who also understand how more energy is evolved only in comparison to what it costs you to split versus the thermal energy you can obtain.: energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-
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.
Ah, it was typed by a stranger in a forum dedicated to to just about any woowoo you care to mention, plus quite a few conspiracy posts as well, so it must be true...

[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.

I'm glad you suggested that people should "do a little investigative work" of their own...

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...


conrad256.jpg
Well, I leave that to using at least some common sense.

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.
You've made a number of claims and its taken you nearly 3 weeks to provide a citation and you call us "people" lazy?

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.
I do however welcome any resources which do exercise common sense... :-)
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/hydroxygas.htm
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?
MY (author) 24 days ago

The Wright Brothers did not give a flip about "peer reviewed" research. That's the problem with eggheads...they rail against things they do not fully comprehend, and then once it's proven they act like it's always been known. This thread has always haunted by a troll. It must REALLY drive him nuts that SO many HHO Instructables have been posted.

asolo'man1 year ago
We are building home units here in Ontario and have a good link to a canadian based manufacturer. Any one interested in the area should link with me. We are aiming to go 100% with anything that has to do with Tesla or free energy. So must you.
By "free", do you mean "costs no money", or "you get more back than you put in"?
At this point in time, free as in you will receive rebates from your federal government if it is a koyoto protocol signatory. In the long run, all of Tesla's inventions and/or discoveries where made to be free and liberate mankind from their involuntary servitude.
Ah, just checking you hadn't fallen for any of the woowoo about so-called "HHO"* generators being capable of overunity.


(The gases are perfectly ordinary H2 and O2, not monatomic gases.)
Definetley will not stop at HHO. Please check out the work of Eric Dollard. I have great respect for the work this man is putting together.
The same Dollard that thinks that electricty isn't a flow of charged particles, and that it flows through the insulator around the wire, instead of the metal of the wire?

Hmmmm....
Well the energy DOES flow in the Poynting vector field surrounding the conductor....
Yeah. You should work with him for the common goal.
Er, no, I don't think so. I prefer to use theories supported by reliable evidence.
I don't know what it is you are quoting but an arm chair scholars such as Einstein is starting to be more obsolete comparing it to Tesla. Cold fusion from water is another topic I am digesting into although this has nothing to do with Environmental studies I take for the most part. Eric Dollard is the only living man in our time and age that has replicated most of what Nikola Tesla has achieved. Only thing missing is the funding to revitalize this quantum field and de-construct the quantum quackery filtered down through the academia. Many reputations are at risk as we speak.
"Armchair scholar"? If that's what you think, then I think any reputations at risk will not really be missed by the scientific community, if they were ever actually noticed by it at all.

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.
https://keychests.com/item.php?id=703
I'll save it for when I need a chuckle, but I'd be much more interested in any (post 1905) peer-reviewed papers.

If the aether is real, then the basic reality of the universe is an invariant frame of reference. In such a framework, relativistic effects cannot happen. Yet, relativistic effects are observed, and used, every second of the day (it's a big part of how the GPS network functions), ergo, the framework of reality is not invariant, and the aether does not exist.

By all means, work to reduce our dependecy on fossil fuels, including using electrolysis to generate hydrogen, but do it in a scientific context to retain the credibility such works requires to be widely accepted and used.

Oh, and the source of my comment was Dollard's own work on "the fallacy of conductors", which uses a YouTube video as evidence that electricity isn't real, and also claims that the concept of electric current is a massive, deliberate deception by the Scientific community over the course of a century...

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...

Currently in Canada the rebates are at $1000 and the kits with installation round up to a little more than half of the rebate.
rhallcne1 year ago
Excellent!! I see now that more and more governments are mandated that their cars manufacturers to be using this device. Don't understand why our government back in the late 70's done this as well. Since NASA proven that it works way back then? But we must remember also the fuel injected engine wasn't allowed in the US until years after other countries done it......
" I see now that more and more governments are mandated that their cars manufacturers to be using this device. " 
[Citation needed]

 "Don't understand why our government back in the late 70's done this as well. Since NASA proven that it works way back then?"
[Citation needed]

 "But we must remember also the fuel injected engine wasn't allowed in the US until years after other countries done it......"
[Citation needed]
kinkwork1 year ago
I too am excited about hho technology and am in the process of building a dry cell hho generator. Its a lot harder than I thought trying to keep it from leaking. I think it may be the gaskets im using. I find myself working in my garage until the early morning because I feel like im so close. Its become an addiction and im not bothered by it at all. I believe this is the future and the more we create in it the realer it becomes. Im definitely staying on this site.
Kunadude1 year ago
Some aspects that are not fully appreciated is that freq very short wavelengths are the generated in spite of your driving freq. This has too do with the fact that the speed if sound slows down due to the gas bubbles present in the water during the electrolysis. This velocity can be down too only a few m/s. While the freq is held constant. And the medium is variable, this causes very short wavelengths to exist in the cell. Perhaps short enough to couple with water and or gas atoms. Forcing them too change they're angular velocity.
If they're so good, why have you not posted a project?
Valid point. I never bothered to post the cells that i have experimented with mainly due to the fact the gas production was similar to what others have duplicated. The difference being only power consumed. However my tinkering has been pointing in the direction of the working principles i laid out.

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.
My thoughts are geared towards individuals who are actively trying too duplicate Stan Meyers WFC. And offer any help toward that goal.

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.
No amount of discussion or posted videos will suffice many critics.
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?
Oh contrae. You have been missinformed. The patent that Stan Meyer recieved under went 3yr of testing by the patent examiners. For technical proof due to The nature and type h applied for under section 101. That needs to duplicative proof to warrant a patent. He also worked for a company that had contracts with NASA.

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
Patents are not required to actually work (I know a man who possesses a legitimate patent for a faster-than-light, anti-gravity space-craft).

"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.
See these are the areas that confuse people. Some patents do not require technical physical proof to obtain while others filed under a different class due require replication of what is beng claimed. So you are partially correct.

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.
I am at a loss as too what exactly you are disputing.
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
I am not disputing that Meyer, or any of the others who insist on using the false term "HHO", have electrolysed water.

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.
Question. That the gas burned is somehow different than ordinary hydrogen.

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.
How is that "different"?

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).
Awe my are of expertise. No. Burning of confined h&O2 in a closed volume such as the cylinder will explode with pressure and heat. The heat is not absorbed fast enough by the surrounding metal so an overall expansive pressure ensues. However if the O2 is missing electrons it is an implosive burn.

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.
Hacking through the mangled spelling and grammar, you have changed the description of the experiment . Typical.

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...

This is from browns gas research that has already been conducted. There are plenty sources if you cared to google. The area in the vicinity of the flame is implosive. Have you never seen documentaries on tv where welding schools use them? The flame adjusts to the temp automatically to the material its exposed too.


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.
Mostly irrelevant, none of it answering the simple question: where's the evidence?

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.
Oh really, how well did that tested to destruction work out for claims you couldn't exceed the sound barrier before doing it. Science said no can do.

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.
Seriously, the "Gallileo argument" does not work - what science said about supersonic flight is irrelevant to what you claim about the basic laws of reality.

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.

Nice try. But Jnnaudin website experiments are conducted by individuals by many that have BS Electrical Engineering or MS. They start off trying to duplicate a published claim or patent. Many work. Hardly amateur. Some of these only appear once enough circulation and interest has occured.

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
"Nice try..."
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.)
As to why don't I post a link to a youtube video? Are kidding me?
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.
"As to why don't I post a link to a youtube video? Are kidding me?
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??

If you really wanted answers the first thing any honest person would do is get the patents. Read them and look over the electrical schematics.
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.
Patents, as I have explained before, are not evidence a device works.

And I tirelessly keep giving you places to view those.
That is a blatant falsehood.

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.)
Let it be known to everyone following this thread was that evidence has been given as requested. On pages 4&5 and 14&15. Of WFC newsletter 11a. Found on the link I have provided. It gives the university names, the researchers title agency, the research center,and including UK Navy, report of confirmation of either a replication successfully done as claimed or an experts attesting to the validity of the electrical scheme.


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.
"Complete false and misleading assertions, that no evidence has been given is a bold faced lie."

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."
Merry Christmas.

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 ..
You are now sounding cynical asking only to believe once its posted in some journal?
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.
"The evidence has been given"...

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 documents illustrate the executive order and title used to place it secret. Meaning no business could bring it to market. All of it is referenced.

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?
And I tirelessly keep giving you places to view those.
1. So what. Where's the evidence?

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.
"I suppose they're test doesn't qualify? Dozens of tests with similar results all over The net?"
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.

Let's get this straight. You claim to encourage experimenting. And as it is, the ppl doing this is not to your liking. To try to suggest that all youtube tests are nonsense?
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.
And while you claim to encourage experimenting. You have not recommended to a sole here to build anything according to claim until now.
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.
Every word from you has been to try and convince ppl this process is without scientific vigor*. Which is absolutely not true."

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.

Lets break this down into sub parts shall we?

- 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.
Stop avoiding the questions.

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".
Those places showing there cells function provide you they're input power used, amount of gas produced. What do you mean no data is given?

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.
Good grief.

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.

I finish my posts in like manner. You give me respect and I will give you respect.
I already have. Simply look over a few videos on youtube. Or Jnnaudin.
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.
You are starting to sound more and more like paid individual to squash, Distract, discourage any interest in this venue at all costs.

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.
"You are starting to sound more and more like paid individual to squash, Distract, discourage any interest in this venue at all costs. "

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).
TL:DR because it lacked

a) The evidence requested

b) Relevance (what the heck does sonoluminescence have to do with electrolysis??)

The reason for mentioning all the other material such as Sonoluminesence, a dr kendal, who was threatened with loosing his license. That at one time science tried to reason was impossible to go faster than the sound barrier without damage. That ac was impossible. And countless! Others is too illustrate science does not have everything all figured out nice and neat as its often portrayed.

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
"...at one time science thought..."

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.)
Ah. Beg to differ. Tesla's teacher told him ac could not be done and tried to illustrate why using science of the day. Read Tesla history.

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 ...
Ah, now it's the "one to many" fallacy - Tesla's teacher [allegedly] told him AC was impossible, therefore all teachers refuse to believe new discoveries can be made.

(This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Tesla recorded how encouraging he found his teachers to be, and that AC was discovered before Tesla started his work, and was already being worked on for power transmission, and he was even beaten to the drop over AC motors [cf: Galileo Ferraris]...)
Its from his own autobiography.

You keep asking for evidence. It exists from well enough sources that have duplicated to varying degree. Some on youtube yeah. And others.
Myself. Not spectacular but it worked.

For you to try to act as if all tests posted are from high school dropouts is hilarious.
"...autobiography"..."
Since you have the autobiography, you'll be able to name the teacher...

"Your son is a star of first rank."

(From a letter sent by the Dean of the Technical Faculty of Austrian Polytechnic in Graz, Austria to Tesla's father.)

"You keep asking for evidence. It exists from well enough sources that have duplicated to varying degree."
If the evidence exists, why can you not present it?

With respect. Are you not going to google Royal Raymond rife and DR kendal?
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.
No, I am not going to google for anything.

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.
My apology, after re reading your statement. Yes if only a small amount of gas is burned in a much larger volume it would explode first. Provided the pressure doesn't desrroy the container first, it will collapse to form water and leaving a partial vacuum.

Water trying to form under unstable conditions is not expansive. It readily implodes.
"Water trying to form under unstable conditions is not expansive. It readily implodes."

No, water forming under combustion readily condenses.
I agree with you on the nature of the gas evolved. Hydrogen and oxygen.
its a science fact that oxygen can loose some of its electrons making it more energetic, thus when attempt to form the water molecule more energy is released. More only if by some way you could cause this with less power on the entire splitting process.



Dude. I am only after trying to make electrolysis at at least 70%a efficient. As Thats all you need in order to use water as an alternative fuel. Who cares if its not 100 or God forbid more. Thats not my aim.

"its a science fact that oxygen can loose some of its electrons making it more energetic, thus when attempt to form the water molecule more energy is released. "

No, it isn't.

Oxygen *gains* electrons and becomes both charged and more reactive.

It does not magically gain energy. The energy lost from the system during burning, or in a fuel cell, was input to the system during electrolysis.

For claims to the contrary to be true would require a fundamental rebuilding of the Universe from the Planck scale up.

I see what you are trying to say. I was referring to the amount of energy obtained in thermal btu as, compared to total equivalent it cost you to split water.


Have you ever looked at Dr Andija Puharich chemistry notes showing how this is factual? I have it in pdf. But lol I couldn't even post a simple photo the other day.


It doesn't matter what units you use, it is an absolute, physical impossibility to gt more energy back from the burn than it "cost" to split the water.

Dr Andija Puharich? The same one who brought Uri Geller to the US? Oh, yes, I've come across him - he thought water molecules were tetrahedral, and that both matter and the human mind were made of "ELF magnetism". Strange that he never published in any peer-reviewed journals... One thing he never claimed, though, was that he got more energy out of the hydrogen & oxygen than he put in.
Most certainly did. Its in his patent
was another solid proof you don't read any patent. You gloss over and thumb through for a few consecutive sentences and thats it. You read maybe 10you sentences an your an expert as to its contents. What joke.

Meyers patents also make the same claim in his patents and explain how this is possible. But seeing how you cannot read, its of no consequence you don't kniw. The main reason this works out, is because the process turns electrolysis on it head by using Voltage (VOLTROLYSIS) and the mechanism for doing the work.
voltage is not consumed. A trivial current is all that is required to produce very high voltage. Therefore is only using small amounts of wattage on input side.

In this manner alone you are no longer comparing apples to apples but rather apples to oranges. Very different in the amount of required power to achieve the same feat.

To attempt arguing that gases do not have elevated energy levels in an ionized or their elemental atomic state is against science as currently taught. Not withstanding many processes today depends upon this fact. When the gases are allowed to recombine thermally. Its fully calculated value of energy is released.
due to the work of the potential and resonance principle very little energy is needed to cause this electron stipping to occur. The users input energy is a modest amount. Yet, now when the gases combine alot more energy than what you physically input is yielding in the burning of the gases.


Don't misunderstanding what I am claiming. Not in the universal sense, that you some how produced extra energy, no. The thermal, the voltage fields and resonance of vibration accounts for that energy fully. As to the work done to remove those electrons. Its accounted for and now you have a gas at a higher energy state. There is no free lunch implied. The energy consumed equals that too separate the gases and in other embodiments account for stripping those electrons.

Meyers process could be reasoned in 3 stages.

1 Separating water into H2 & O2.
2 Resonance and vibration in a cavity
3 Stripping electrons from liberated gases.


90% or more demonstration only achieve Stage 1. This is only modesty at best better than regular DC electrolysis. The burning gas doesn't have the energy as regular gasoline and not as efficient in fact as a alternative at this point. Would require specific quantities to even run an engine solo as compared to gasoline.

Using Stages 1&2, greatly simplifies the need for additives for one, as a cost and greatly reduces the electrical power demand too achieve the same thing. Merely an energy savings.

Meyers stated goals was always, Stage 3. It is at this stage that the game has changed tremendously in your intended goal as compared to what little electrical power you consume.

More or less
What level of chemistry have you completed?

Oxygen can be stripped of electrons as well.
The fewer it has in its orbital rings increases its activity and raises it energetic state.
I am a high school science teacher.

Electrolysis does not strip oxygen of electrons. Electrolysis does not produce positively charged oxygen. Electrolysis does not produce "unstable oxygen atoms".

(Go on, prove me wrong.)
Standard electrolysis does not no. But gas can be had this way only not very economically. Through pulsing it can be obtained more efficient.
By stripping those gas atoms of electrons it raises the combustible energy when burning. Which is what Meyer was doing and not plain ole electrolysis.

Read here the gist of the process.

The problem is not the patents. Its your failure to attempt and experiments for yourself.

http://www.hyfusion.com/StanleyMeyerWaterFuelCell.htm
"The problem is not the patents. Its your failure to attempt and experiments for yourself. "

No, the failure is the complete lack of evidence. Posting an advert for plans does not constitute evidence.

Why should I spend out hundreds of pounds to build a device that, according to all available verifiable evidence, does not, and cannot, perform as claimed?

Provide the evidence, and you will have thousands of people queuing at your door to buy the plans. Anybody who holds relevant will become overnight billionaires.

All you have to do is prove it works.

You claim to have built one, where's your data? Energy in, energy out, control systems, comparisons with standard cells etc?
I have built several dc cells with various outputs. Nothing to hold a meeting over but I have like others and built my first meyers version off dave lawtons design. It worked better than the straight dc versions. Again nothing to hold a press meeting over but worked. Years later I realized what was missing. Stripping electrons it and have not built another yet.

The Joe cells that were so hot for awhile on the net? Are just simple dc cells that were take advantages of two sources already there in your engine.
Namely doing electrolysis under vacuum and the thermal benefits that come with that. Thats it.
All of the methods to split water are basically efficiency differences on driving input to achieve electrolysis.

Until one uses the well known case of making the O2 atom unstable.
If done economically, the energy will be greater now due to the energetic activity of this Oxygen with missing electrons. It was only this way Meyer could run a car on smaller amounts of gas as normally would be required. The gas produced being more than 3x in thermal energy than simple burning of hydrogen and oxygen.
"Until one uses the well known case of making the O2 atom unstable."

O2 is a molecule, not an atom, and is not unstable.

"If done economically, the energy will be greater now due to the energetic activity of this Oxygen with missing electrons."

As I hav pointed out elsewhere, oxygen does not lose electrons during electrolysis, it gains them.

"It was only this way Meyer could run a car on smaller amounts of gas as normally would be required. The gas produced being more than 3x in thermal energy than simple burning of hydrogen and oxygen. "

Really?  These claims get ever more extravagant - yet you still have not provided one scrap of actual evidence to back them up.
Now We are are getting somewhere. Think you have me confused stuff you have come across from all the various HHO websites you have visited.
point that is rather insulting. When yo ask for patents and sources you yourself have looked at. Whether you believe it is another thing. I would bet money you have in hand those patents. Don't play coy. I will post them along with reference that gas does produce more energy than used to split the water.

Meanwhile, what is your purpose here other than to stop all efforts in this avenue.
since you have never offered the slightest of suggestions. I remind you of the purpose this thread was opened. Your sole purpose here is to prevent anyone from discovery through frustration and hoping they will simply stop and give up before even trying.
you act ignorant when you are a vulture on multiple hho forums. Obviously you don't care about the topic so why visit such forums? Dr.bifield thomas townsed teacher encouraged him to explore the movement of a charged capacitor rather than behaving as you do. That led to two new discoveries.
Tesla didn't listen to his teacher and modern thought that ac power, was not possible. And we have ac today thanks to him. What is seldom talked about is when he first pioneer the idea he was badgered much the same with why according to science of the day why it was not possible.


As the far as patents. In spite of your knowledge patents have been and can be rejected based on violating certain laws and current thought. The simple page you to want says this on patent office rules. In general practice it works as you point out. There are former patent examiners giving testimony about those abuses.
henry moray was denied a patent twice over his germanium valve the first transistor. Because science ardently said was impossible. Only two have bell labs later patent exactly that. Moray attempted patent on this transistor separate from his power supply. Cold fusion was attacked such as well and now is accepted in science.

You attempt to view science as if there is universal agreement on all aspects of a given science theory. Which is completely not true.

Gabriel kron one of our most recognized experts even today in the art electrical engineering had views contrary to some taught theories. Regarding open systems.


All of this is trivial and only serves your goal of infecting a forum by trying to get it steered away from anything practical. And tying ppl up squabbling is you guys most effective tactic.



So I remind you, read the purpose of this forum once more and either offer suggestions from material you already have seen and cough. Up ideas or please shut up as you so rudely tell everyone else here.

It to is sad that ppl can't find one place to exchange ideas without trolls like you here simply causing distractions.



So obviously HHO is not your interest. Then why waste so much of your time posting on HHO forums.?

Truth is you are probably on multiple HHO forums spouting this same garbage. I would bet money you are even a moderator one site right?
Taking pleasure in rudely insulting and attacking ppl. And anyone that challenges you simply gets booted from the discussion.


My next guess is you are not a moderator here and that probably has you frustrated. So please go to a site you are more in control of and take it out there on some poor sucker.


I fell bait to your play. From now on unless we talk specifics regarding WFC and how to construct in a civilized manner,i will simply ignore you from this point.
I would bet money you have in hand those patents. Don't play coy. I will post them along with reference that gas does produce more energy than used to split the water.
No, I don't have them. I want them, but I cannot seem to find them. Strange.

Meanwhile, what is your purpose here other than to stop all efforts in this avenue.
since you have never offered the slightest of suggestions. I remind you of the purpose this thread was opened. Your sole purpose here is to prevent anyone from discovery through frustration and hoping they will simply stop and give up before even trying.

My purpose is education and the exposure of woowoo. HHO is not real, its claims are not real. I keep asking you to prove me wrong, but you do not even try.

you act ignorant when you are a vulture on multiple hho forums. Obviously you don't care about the topic so why visit such forums?
I do not visit other forums.

Dr.bifield thomas townsed teacher encouraged him to explore the movement of a charged capacitor rather than behaving as you do. That led to two new discoveries.
Tesla didn't listen to his teacher and modern thought that ac power, was not possible. And we have ac today thanks to him. What is seldom talked about is when he first pioneer the idea he was badgered much the same with why according to science of the day why it was not possible.

Ah, the old "they laughed at XX, and he was right, so if they laugh at me, I must be right" fallacy.

As the far as patents. In spite of your knowledge patents have been and can be rejected based on violating certain laws and current thought.
You said the patents exist. Now you're telling me they don't? PLease, try and keep your story straight!

henry moray was denied a patent twice over his germanium valve the first transistor. Because science ardently said was impossible. Only two have bell labs later patent exactly that. Moray attempted patent on this transistor separate from his power supply.
See "laughed" fallacy above.

Cold fusion was attacked such as well and now is accepted in science.
Really? Where? Last I saw, it was being studied, but not repeated.

You attempt to view science as if there is universal agreement on all aspects of a given science theory. Which is completely not true.
Yes, it is. That is how science works. An hypothesis is studied and tested until nobody can find significant fault in it. At that point, the hypothesis is promoted to "theory".

cough. Up ideas or please shut up as you so rudely tell everyone else here.
No, I asked *you* to "put up or shut up", because you keep making extravagant claims, and have not provided a single scrap of reliable evidence to back yourself up.

It to is sad that ppl can't find one place to exchange ideas without trolls like you here simply causing distractions.
Do you accuse everybody who refuses to swallow your ideas whole of being a troll? Or is that just a personal attack?
So obviously HHO is not your interest. Then why waste so much of your time posting on HHO forums.?

Truth is you are probably on multiple HHO forums spouting this same garbage. I would bet money you are even a moderator one site right?
Taking pleasure in rudely insulting and attacking ppl. And anyone that challenges you simply gets booted from the discussion.

Wrong on all counts, but that paragraph gives us an insight as to why you are here.

My next guess is you are not a moderator here and that probably has you frustrated. So please go to a site you are more in control of and take it out there on some poor sucker.
You really ought to do your research before you cast around many more ad hominem attacks.

I fell bait to your play. From now on unless we talk specifics regarding WFC and how to construct in a civilized manner,i will simply ignore you from this point.
So, what's changing? I keep asking you for evidence of your claims, but you keep ignoring my requests.

I wonder why?
-------------------------------------

TL:DR version: you're paranoid, and avoiding direct requests for evidence by resorting to baseless personal insults.

Behave, or I will remove your comments.



Kunadude wrote: "It to is sad that ppl can't find one place to exchange ideas without trolls like you here simply causing distractions."

I take issue with name calling. Especially calling someone a troll when you yourself have only been a member here for 17 days.

There is a be nice policy here. Please review the be nice policy. Be nice.

Thank You

Lex
First two points you and I agree. Firmly.
Third point we disagree, and as funny as it is you being science classes cheerleader don't dispute that water can be split more efficiently through pulse dc or from rf as compared to standard electrolysis. You should check back with your sources as you'll find even they differ from you on this point.
1-100 of 499Next »