combustion of hydrogen?
Don Lancaster
Brian Mueller wrote:
> I was wondering:
>
> What happens if hydrogen is combusted directly? That is, what is the
> result? (besides energy) Water?
>
> please post messages. :-)
> -------------
> "cogito cum sum." --Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am")
>
> Brian Mueller -=muld...@ix.netcom.com=-
In oxygen, water.
In air, water plus nitrous oxide at certain temperatures, pressures, and
mixtures.
Thus, burning hydrogen in air usually pollutes.
The invisible flame is also extremely dangerous in an open burn.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Know your acronymns: url = utterly rancid location
net = not entirely true
www = world wide wait
tvoivozd
tvoivozhd>>>yes,
Brian Mueller
Robert Erck
In article <3410BB16...@tinaja.com>, d...@tinaja.com wrote:
> In oxygen, water.
> In air, water plus nitrous oxide at certain temperatures, pressures, and
> mixtures.
> Thus, burning hydrogen in air usually pollutes.
>
> The invisible flame is also extremely dangerous in an open burn.
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
>
> Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>
> Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
> Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
>
> Know your acronymns: url = utterly rancid location
> net = not entirely true
> www = world wide wait
I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not* invisible.
John M. Feiereisen
In <bob_erck-070...@et212pc113.et.anl.gov>,
bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov (Robert Erck) wrote:
>In article <3410BB16...@tinaja.com>, d...@tinaja.com wrote:
>> Brian Mueller wrote:
>> > What happens if hydrogen is combusted directly? That is, what is the
>> > result? (besides energy) Water?
>> In oxygen, water.
>> In air, water plus nitrous oxide at certain temperatures, pressures, and
>> mixtures.
>> Thus, burning hydrogen in air usually pollutes.
>>
>> The invisible flame is also extremely dangerous in an open burn.
>I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not* invisible.
Well, it sure doesn't emit *much* light -- visible *or* infrared. A
methanol flame is practically invisible as well. I saw a video a
while back of some pit crew member who had just fueled a race car
with methanol, spilled spilled some on himself, and somehow got
ignited. It looked like he was just jumping around like a lunatic
because you just couldn't see any flames. It was several seconds
before somebody figured out the poor guy was on fire and put him out.
BTW, I was pushing a pencil on some H2+O2 combustion calculations over
the weekend so I'd be armed with some figures the next time some
Brown's Gas fanatic tries to pass his delusions off as reality. One
of the figures I was interested in was the adiabatic flame temperature
of 2H2 + O2 --> 2H20.
The tables I have for the ideal gas properties of superheated water
top out at 3250 degK. Could somebody please look up the temperature
at which the ideal gas enthalpy of superheated water is 251724 kJ/kg
mol? Or did I screw up somewhere? Thanks.
Something tells me this temperature is so high, the reaction wouldn't
actually go to completion. Does anybody have figures?
--
John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc(dot)utc(dot)com
don2
> >I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not* invisible.
>
> Well, it sure doesn't emit *much* light -- visible *or* infrared. A
Sources for my claim that hydrogen burns nearly invisibly:
(1) A letter in front of me from the president of the hydrogen association
telling me
about the *EXTREME* measures they are now going to to make burning
hydrogen
more visible.
(2) A haz mat school I went to a month ago where we learned about dealing with
invisible hydrogen flames as part of my professional training.
(3) A Phoenix hydrogen near-BLEVE a year back where they had to do the pike pole
rag trick to find the flame front.
Brian Mueller
Robert Erck wrote:
>I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not* invisible.
I knew that. :) As far as I know, the space shuttle combusts hydrogen
(but not in the solid fuel rockets, of course).
So in air it produces nitrous oxide...hmm...I assume that's because of
the high nitrogen content of the atmosphere (80% nitrogen, 19% oxygen,
1% other things). So in an aircraft or an automobile, would it be
possible to put a filter where the ICE takes in air which filters
nitrogen out? Forgive me, I'm not an engineer. :-) Actually I promote
EVs with clean power generators :-) (not as my occupation, it's just
something I do).
Of course, I wasn't the one who said a hydrogen flame is invisible;
just wanted to add this. :)
-------------
"cogito ergo sum." --Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am")
Brian Mueller -=muld...@ix.netcom.com=-
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>
> In <bob_erck-070...@et212pc113.et.anl.gov>,
> bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov (Robert Erck) wrote:
>
> >In article <3410BB16...@tinaja.com>, d...@tinaja.com wrote:
>
> >> Brian Mueller wrote:
>
> >> > What happens if hydrogen is combusted directly? That is, what is the
> >> > result? (besides energy) Water?
>
> >> In oxygen, water.
> >> In air, water plus nitrous oxide at certain temperatures, pressures, and
> >> mixtures.
> >> Thus, burning hydrogen in air usually pollutes.
> >>
> >> The invisible flame is also extremely dangerous in an open burn.
>
>
> while back of some pit crew member who had just fueled a race car
> with methanol, spilled spilled some on himself, and somehow got
> ignited. It looked like he was just jumping around like a lunatic
> because you just couldn't see any flames. It was several seconds
> before somebody figured out the poor guy was on fire and put him out.
>
> BTW, I was pushing a pencil on some H2+O2 combustion calculations over
> the weekend so I'd be armed with some figures the next time some
> Brown's Gas fanatic tries to pass his delusions off as reality. One
> of the figures I was interested in was the adiabatic flame temperature
> of 2H2 + O2 --> 2H20.
>
> The tables I have for the ideal gas properties of superheated water
> top out at 3250 degK. Could somebody please look up the temperature
> at which the ideal gas enthalpy of superheated water is 251724 kJ/kg
> mol? Or did I screw up somewhere? Thanks.
>
> Something tells me this temperature is so high, the reaction wouldn't
> actually go to completion. Does anybody have figures?
>
> --
> John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc(dot)utc(dot)com
Yet more pigheaded nonsense from someone
WHO HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN NEAR A BROWN'S GAS FLAME.
Tell us all about this flame you have never even seen,
let alone tested, Mr. Feuerhosen.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Brian Mueller (muld...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Robert Erck wrote:
> :
> : >I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not* invisible.
> :
> : I knew that. :) As far as I know, the space shuttle combusts hydrogen
> : (but not in the solid fuel rockets, of course).
> :
> : So in air it produces nitrous oxide...hmm...I assume that's because of
> : the high nitrogen content of the atmosphere (80% nitrogen, 19% oxygen,
> : 1% other things). So in an aircraft or an automobile, would it be
> : possible to put a filter where the ICE takes in air which filters
> : nitrogen out? Forgive me, I'm not an engineer. :-) Actually I promote
> : EVs with clean power generators :-) (not as my occupation, it's just
> : something I do).
>
> performed. It's generally accomplished by first liquifying
> air, then separating the major component fractions by a form
> of distillation. One well known firm (Air Reduction Oxygen) makes
> their major income by doing this to supply oxygen and nitrogen
> to major industrial and institutional users. You've probably
> seen them trucking their products around in big refrigerated tank
> trucks on the interstates.
>
> It is difficult to image a practical device capable of performing
> this separation in useful quantities being part of a car.
>
> Harry C.
>
> p.s., Worse still, the exhaust of a hydrogen fueled vehicle
> combusting hydrogren with air would contain, in addition
> to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, ammonia (NH4). This
> is real nasty stuff to be belching from an exhaust pipe
> in any quantity!
I have a video of George Wiseman running a car engine (Chevy Vega) on
Brown's gas/air mix, and the only thing coming out the exhaust is water
vapor, which he breathes, as well as collects as condensate in the palm
of his hand, and tastes.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Don Lancaster wrote:
>
> don2 wrote:
>
> > > >I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not* invisible.
> > > Well, it sure doesn't emit *much* light -- visible *or* infrared. A
>
> The burning with a near invisible flame follows directly from hydrogen's laughingly
> pathetic energy density by volume. A liter of gasoline offers 9600 watt hours. A liter
> of lead acid offers 30 watt hours. A liter of STP hydrogen offers an abysmally
> putrid 3.5 watt hours.
>
> Burning a liter of gasoline should light up something like 3000 TIMES as bright as
> burning a liter of atmospheric pressure hydrogen. Probably even MUCH brighter than
> this, because of contaminants and elemental contacts downconverting some of the
> ultraviolet..
>
> Can't see it.
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
>
> Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
> Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
>
> Know your acronymns: url = utterly rancid location
> net = not entirely true
> www = world wide wait
Yet more pigheaded nonsense from someone
WHO HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN NEAR A BROWN'S GAS FLAME.
Tell us all about this BG flame you have never even seen,
let alone tested, Mr. Lancaster.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>
> In <34155F6E...@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The burning with a near invisible flame follows directly from hydrogen's laughingly
> >pathetic energy density by volume.
>
> is mainly the result of the lack of particulate matter in the flame
> and the relatively poor radiation of heat by hot gases.
>
> Take a candle for example. This diffusion flame has lots of
> particulate matter (soot) that's heated to a high temperature in the
> flame and radiates heat as a result. Now, look at an oxyacetylene
> torch. Properly adjusted, it produces very little soot to radiate
> heat and has a dark (relative to the candle) blue flame as a result.
> Very little of the torch's heat is radiated -- the bulk of it is
> convected away by the hot gases.
>
> >A liter of gasoline offers 9600 watt hours. A liter
> >of lead acid offers 30 watt hours. A liter of STP hydrogen offers an abysmally
> >putrid 3.5 watt hours.
>
>
> --
> John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc(dot)utc(dot)com
Yet more pigheaded nonsense from someone
WHO HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN NEAR A BROWN'S GAS FLAME.
Tell us all about this BG flame you have never even seen,
let alone tested, Mr. Feuerhosen.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Don Lancaster (d...@tinaja.com) wrote:
> :
> : The burning with a near invisible flame follows directly from hydrogen's
> : laughingly pathetic energy density by volume. A liter of gasoline offers
> : 9600 watt hours.
>
> Don, I am under the impression that the low visibility of a hydrogen
> flame stems, not from its very low energy density, but from (1) the lack
> of particulate matter formation in the flame heated to incandescence
> and (2) that the spectal lines of hydrogen are largely in invisible
> portions of the spectrum.
>
> Provide a presence of matter that can be heated into incandescence
> (such as a gas mantle) and it will emit as much
> brightness as any other fuel gas (albeit not for as long a time
> on and identical fuel quantity).
>
> Harry C.
Yet more pigheaded nonsense from someone
WHO HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN NEAR A BROWN'S GAS FLAME.
Tell us all about a BG flame you have never even seen,
let alone tested, Mr.CONover.
Let's hear more of your non-experiential information.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Brian Mueller wrote:
>
> Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> >Elimination of nitrogen from air would is something not easily
>
> >It is difficult to image a practical device capable of performing
> >this separation in useful quantities being part of a car.
>
>
> What about a fuel cell based on hydrogen? Would that react with the
> air (producing nasty chemicals) or just with some material in the fuel
> cell? My understanding is that the only outputs of a hydrogen fuel
> cell are water, electricity, and heat. Is this correct?
>
> >p.s., Worse still, the exhaust of a hydrogen fueled vehicle
> > combusting hydrogren with air would contain, in addition
> > to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, ammonia (NH4). This
> > is real nasty stuff to be belching from an exhaust pipe
> > in any quantity!
>
>
> -------------
> "cogito ergo sum." --Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am")
>
> Brian Mueller -=muld...@ix.netcom.com=-
As I said earlier, Brian,
George Wiseman, as well as others,
such as Dale Pond, ("...On the other hand we were able to run a VW
engine by simply mixing the gas with air in the carburetor. The engine
ran fine for the duration of the experiment. For hard numbers and
indepth
research I suggest contacting George Wiseman as he and his people have
been doing considerable testing of Brown's Gas.".... Dale Pond)
Yull Brown, and Jimmy Reed,
to name a few more,
has run Brown's gas/air mix
in an unmodified car engine with none of the
negative baloney being portrayed here,
but just water vapor coming out the exhaust,
with an internal engine combustion temperature
of about 274 deg F.
By the way -
Jimmy Reed's BG generator
was in the vehicle (a Dodge van with a 225 slant six)
and run off the alternator,
producing enough Brown's gas
on 35 watts of power from that alternator,
measured at the generator as it was running,
to run the engine for 15-minute runs with no problems
except overproduction of the gas
(more gas was being produced
than the engine needed to run,
and too much pressure was being built up
in the BG generator,
forcing Reed to shut down the engine
after 15 minutes -
he didn't have a pressure switch
to turn the generator off,
and he was afraid to run it at over 50 psi).
OHannon
Michael Hannon
I concur.
OHannon
tvoivozd wrote:
>
> tvoivozhd>>>yes,
>
> Brian Mueller wrote:
>
> > I was wondering:
> >
> > What happens if hydrogen is combusted directly? That is, what is the
> > result? (besides energy) Water?
> >
> > please post messages. :-)
> > -------------
> > "cogito cum sum." --Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am")
> >
> > Brian Mueller -=muld...@ix.netcom.com=-
fkasner
Harry H Conover <con...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<5v2g8j$g...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> Brian Mueller (muld...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Robert Erck wrote:
> :
> : >I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not*
invisible.
> :
> : I knew that. :) As far as I know, the space shuttle combusts hydrogen
> : (but not in the solid fuel rockets, of course).
> :
> : So in air it produces nitrous oxide...hmm...I assume that's because of
> : the high nitrogen content of the atmosphere (80% nitrogen, 19% oxygen,
> : 1% other things). So in an aircraft or an automobile, would it be
> : possible to put a filter where the ICE takes in air which filters
> : nitrogen out? Forgive me, I'm not an engineer. :-) Actually I promote
> : EVs with clean power generators :-) (not as my occupation, it's just
> : something I do).
>
> Elimination of nitrogen from air would is something not easily
> performed. It's generally accomplished by first liquifying
> air, then separating the major component fractions by a form
> of distillation. One well known firm (Air Reduction Oxygen) makes
> their major income by doing this to supply oxygen and nitrogen
> to major industrial and institutional users. You've probably
> seen them trucking their products around in big refrigerated tank
> trucks on the interstates.
>
> It is difficult to image a practical device capable of performing
> this separation in useful quantities being part of a car.
>
> Harry C.
>
> p.s., Worse still, the exhaust of a hydrogen fueled vehicle
> combusting hydrogren with air would contain, in addition
> to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, ammonia (NH4). This
> is real nasty stuff to be belching from an exhaust pipe
> in any quantity!
>
>
>
This seems quite unlikely. Note that the products NO and NO2 are produced
because the N2 is oxidized by the O2 present at the high temperatures of
the combustion. NH3 (not NH4 as you wrote) is a product of the reduction of
N2 not of its oxidation. The conditions of the combustion of H2 in air are
clearly not condusive to reduction of the N2 unless there were a large
enough excess of H2 to reduce some of the N2. Rather unlikely that both
oxidation and reduction would occur simultaneously in the same high
temperature mix of N2 H2 and O2. F. Kasner
Harry H Conover
Don Lancaster
don2 wrote:
> > >I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not* invisible.
> (snip)
> > Well, it sure doesn't emit *much* light -- visible *or* infrared. A
> (snop)
The burning with a near invisible flame follows directly from hydrogen's laughingly
pathetic energy density by volume. A liter of gasoline offers 9600 watt hours. A liter
of lead acid offers 30 watt hours. A liter of STP hydrogen offers an abysmally
putrid 3.5 watt hours.
Burning a liter of gasoline should light up something like 3000 TIMES as bright as
John M. Feiereisen
In <34155F6E...@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
wrote:
> The burning with a near invisible flame follows directly from hydrogen's laughingly
>pathetic energy density by volume.
I've got to take issue with this one, Don. The nearly invisible flame
is mainly the result of the lack of particulate matter in the flame
and the relatively poor radiation of heat by hot gases.
Take a candle for example. This diffusion flame has lots of
particulate matter (soot) that's heated to a high temperature in the
flame and radiates heat as a result. Now, look at an oxyacetylene
torch. Properly adjusted, it produces very little soot to radiate
heat and has a dark (relative to the candle) blue flame as a result.
Very little of the torch's heat is radiated -- the bulk of it is
convected away by the hot gases.
>A liter of gasoline offers 9600 watt hours. A liter
>of lead acid offers 30 watt hours. A liter of STP hydrogen offers an abysmally
>putrid 3.5 watt hours.
And it's amazing how much perpetual motion mania surrounds this gas.
Harry H Conover
Don Lancaster (d...@tinaja.com) wrote:
:
: The burning with a near invisible flame follows directly from hydrogen's
: 9600 watt hours.
Don, I am under the impression that the low visibility of a hydrogen
Brian Mueller
Harry H Conover wrote:
>Elimination of nitrogen from air would is something not easily
>performed. [...]
>It is difficult to image a practical device capable of performing
>this separation in useful quantities being part of a car.
Darn. Oh well, forget it then. :-)
What about a fuel cell based on hydrogen? Would that react with the
air (producing nasty chemicals) or just with some material in the fuel
cell? My understanding is that the only outputs of a hydrogen fuel
cell are water, electricity, and heat. Is this correct?
>p.s., Worse still, the exhaust of a hydrogen fueled vehicle
> combusting hydrogren with air would contain, in addition
> to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, ammonia (NH4). This
> is real nasty stuff to be belching from an exhaust pipe
> in any quantity!
Oh man...*definitely* forget the combustion of hydrogen idea! :-)
-------------
"cogito ergo sum." --Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am")
Brian Mueller -=muld...@ix.netcom.com=-
Harry H Conover
fkasner (fka...@mcs.com) wrote:
: This seems quite unlikely. Note that the products NO and NO2 are produced
: because the N2 is oxidized by the O2 present at the high temperatures of
: the combustion. NH3 (not NH4 as you wrote) is a product of the reduction of
: N2 not of its oxidation. The conditions of the combustion of H2 in air are
: clearly not condusive to reduction of the N2 unless there were a large
: enough excess of H2 to reduce some of the N2. Rather unlikely that both
: oxidation and reduction would occur simultaneously in the same high
: temperature mix of N2 H2 and O2. F. Kasner
Hi Fred,
You raise a valid issue. Still, isn't the resulting mix of gasses a
function of the specific equilibrium reached, since the reactions are
(particularly at the temperature and pressures under which combustion
withing an engine takes place) somewhat reversible?
Also...
As a non-chemist, your statement about a hydrogen rich
mixture seemed significant to me. After the fuel mixture oxygen is
consumed, wouldn't residual hydrogen reduce the nitrogen to form
NH3, some of which would then react with the water condensed in the
exhaust system to produce a corrosive ammonia solution?
Am I wrong about this?
Harry C.
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : >
> : > p.s., Worse still, the exhaust of a hydrogen fueled vehicle
> : > combusting hydrogren with air would contain, in addition
> : > to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, ammonia (NH4). This
> : > is real nasty stuff to be belching from an exhaust pipe
> : > in any quantity!
> : I have a video of George Wiseman running a car engine (Chevy Vega) on
> : Brown's gas/air mix, and the only thing coming out the exhaust is water
> : vapor, which he breathes, as well as collects as condensate in the palm
> : of his hand, and tastes.
>
>
> When I was but a child they built a sewerage treatment plant in our
> town. Convinced of it's effectiveness and dedicated to proving that
> the outflow of the sewerage treatment plant was totally benign, the
> town engineer/health office illustrated his belief and confidence by
> drinking from the outflow. He nearly died.
>
> He was a man of integrity, but not all too bright!
>
> Harry C.
Good for you, Railroad Harry.
George Wiseman is alive and well, thank you.
Perhaps you can now tell us,
once again, since you've
never even SEEN a Brown's gas flame
exactly what is in the exhaust gas
of Wiseman's car?
I'm sure George would really like
to have you explain what he's been
working with for years now
to him by someone who has never even
been near a Brown's gas ANYTHING
in his entire life.
You're some scientist,
Railroad Harry.
As a matter of fact,
you may be one of the best examples of
what a young scientist must
learn NOT do,
and that is to speculate on, and derrogate
what he has NO KNOWLEDGE OF.
Keep up the lousy science, Mr. CONover
the world is your audience,
and apparently you love the attention,
no matter how negative it may be.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> H2OPWRD (h2o...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : As I stated Stan Meyer has met the challenge of the government's Zero
> : emmisions and Oxydized fuel requirements with his use of plain water which
> : alrady contains the Oxygen, not needing to take any from the ambient air to
> : perform complete combustion and recombination.
>
> Hardly. Stan Meyer is still having difficulty grasping the fundamental
> requirement that energy output = energy input less net loss. As Robert
> has previously pointed out, water is already oxidized -- it is essentially
> an ash -- as such, it has no chemical energy to contribute.
>
> Sadly, Stan will waste his own life and a lot of other people's money
> learning what others discovered and documented centuries ago.
>
> Such is the cost of ignorance!
>
> Harry C.
Thank you, "God," for yet more speculation
on something about which you have
no experiential knowledge whatsoever.
What is really unfortunate here isn't Stan's work
which is without question beyond
the scope of your ability to conceptualize,
being the ignorant egotist that you are,
with no desire to change
your blatant disregard for the
research of others in fields
about which you know nothing,
and with the typical egotism
of the ignorant know-it-all,
an endless supply of advice
and an unlimited lack of understanding
of that about which
you wish to burden those
upon whom you want to impose that advice,
without any request on their part but
that you please stop doing it.
Ignorance is bliss only for those
who don't have to bear the burden
of having it imposed on them by
the likes of someone like yourself.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
> : amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen. They are made up and held together by
> : components moving how fast? The speed of light? Faster? Gee what if you
> : could tap into that? I think Stan Meyer has done so because his techniques
> : are NEW, not a hundred years old.
> :
>
> I strongly suggest learning a bit of elementary science, so that in the
> future you will not be taken in by fraudsters like Meyer and his ilk
> again.
>
> Be sure an let me know when your investment in Meyer and his side-show
> tricks begins to pay off. Until then, I will place my trust in knowledge
> that lights and heats our homes, put a man on the moon and returned
> him safely to earth, supports our communications including the medium
> that you are now utilizing, and has been singularly responsible for every
> major technological advancement in the past 150 years or so.
>
> Harry C.
Please go peddle your enginner's
egotism and bigotry elsewhere,
Railroad Harry.
You are not a scientist.
You do not think like a true scientist,
and anyone really interested in
the science of hydrogen as an energy source,
particularly in light of the fact that
you have repeatedly stated here
that your strong opinion is
that is is not a valid energy source,
would seriously wonder why someone
who does not see it as an energy source
continues to impose that opinion
on others here who do,
and who wish to discuss it.
Go play engineer in the engineer playpen,
Railroad Harry -
not in the NG where people
wish to take a scientist's viewpoint,
and not an egotistical, ignorant engineer's.
Engineers do not think like scientists -
they are not required to -
they are allowed the bigotry of the engineering discipline,
which has to factor in the unknown
only when forced to,
while the scientific discipline
cannot allow the denial of unknown variables,
nor the tactless impudence to ever
wave the flag of "impossible,"
particularly without having
the experience of the phenomena
about which it is making
such tasteless, characterless, and shameless presumptions.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
fkasner wrote:
>
> H2OPWRD <h2o...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19970913211...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> > B. Erck Wrote:
> > >Fred Kasner correctly pointed out to me that a vapor is the gaseous form
> > >of a substance that is at a temperature below its boiling point at the
> > >ambient pressure.
> > >
> > >That is, if you have a bottle half full of liquid water, the space above
> > >the liquid is occupied by water *vapor* and whatever other gases might
> be
> > >in the bottle.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the geat description. Is it truly necessary for the vapour to
> > be below boiling? What if it is hotter than 212F? It woud still be water
> > vopour?
>
> Once again, if the temperature of the gaseous form of the liquid is at a
> temperature below the boiling point of the liquid at the ambient pressure
> the gaseous form of that liquid is frequently called a vapor. If it is
> above
> the boiling point temperature for that pressure the gas is NOT properly
> called a vapor. So to be more specific in an example: if the pressure is
> the average one atmosphere (760 torr) and the temperature of the
> gaseous water is 213F the gas in NOT a vapor. If the pressure is one
> atmosphere and the temperature is 211F the gas of water can be called
> a vapor. It's as simple as that.
>
> ...
> I will not comment on the Brown's Gas ideas since I have never found
> anything unusual about gases produced with or without an electrolyte
> in the water when electrolyzed. As for "resonance" in AC used in such
> electrolysis I do not see how a frequency of AC many many orders of
> magnitude lower than the very high frequencies of stretching and bending
> of the hydrogen to oxygen bond in water can have any effect whatsoever
> in breaking such bonds. Even enormously high harmonics of the
> fundamental would be too low to affect the frequency of such bonds.
> Get a life, friend!
Are you aware of the salient fact
that the actual ENERGY CONTENT LEVELS
of the 11th and 12th harmonics
of a fundamental pulse-type vibration
are much higher than the fundamental,
or any lower harmonic?
No. Mr. Kasner.
If you doubt that,
why not consider the energy levels
in blue versus red light.
You are so ignorant of things
about which you know absolutely nothing,
yet seem quite pleased with yourself to
offer ignorant opinions about them.
Perhaps you'd better study
some of the research conducted independently
on Meyer's work, in which it was demonstrated
that the production of separated gases from water
became quite a simple process at certain frequencies.
Of course, you wouldn't want to discover the truth,
such as the new welder
that George Wiseman is coming out with at
http://www.eagle-research.com/
under Brown's Gas Book 2 either,
because your ignorant little view of reality
would need a sudden painful clean-up
that your ego isn't ready to take on.
It's much easier to send unsolicited
ignorant, nasty, little secret emails,
isn't it?
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Robert Erck wrote:
>
> In article <3413C5...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
> oha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > Brian Mueller wrote:
> > >
> > > Harry H Conover wrote:
> > >
> > > >Elimination of nitrogen from air would is something not easily
> > > >performed. [...]
> > >
> > > >It is difficult to image a practical device capable of performing
> > > >this separation in useful quantities being part of a car.
> > >
> > > Darn. Oh well, forget it then. :-)
> > >
> > > What about a fuel cell based on hydrogen? Would that react with the
> > > air (producing nasty chemicals) or just with some material in the fuel
> > > cell? My understanding is that the only outputs of a hydrogen fuel
> > > cell are water, electricity, and heat. Is this correct?
> > >
> > > > combusting hydrogren with air would contain, in addition
> > > > to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, ammonia (NH4). This
> > > > is real nasty stuff to be belching from an exhaust pipe
> > > > in any quantity!
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------
> > > "cogito ergo sum." --Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am")
> > >
> > > Brian Mueller -=muld...@ix.netcom.com=-
> >
> has a combustion temperature of 274F.
> Although the rest of the world is striving for higher temperatures in
> boilers and engines, Brown and colleagues to lower. They must have a
> revolutionary new kind of thermodynamics for heat engines.
Y'know what, Bob -
things appear to point to the possibility
that you are right about that.
I've repeatedly detonated Brown's gas/air mixtures,
and have yet to experience
ANY appreciable temperature rise
in the explosion containers,
even when wrapping the containers in insulation -
highly corrolary to the Graneau/Johnson
water explosion experiments,
and remarkably parallel as well
to extrapolation of results in
Mills's hydrino theory work.
OHannon
jch...@powerball.net
In article <34155F6E...@tinaja.com>,
Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
>...
>
> The burning with a near invisible flame follows directly from hydrogen's
laughingly
> pathetic energy density by volume. A liter of gasoline offers 9600 watt hours.
> of lead acid offers 30 watt hours. A liter of STP hydrogen offers an
abysmally
> putrid 3.5 watt hours.
By contrast, a liter of sodium hydride (NaH) offers a respectable 4500
watt hours worth of on demand hydrogen from water.
Sodium Hydride powerball technology deserves a closer look.
...snip
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
>
> Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
> Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
>
> Know your acronymns: url = utterly rancid location
> net = not entirely true
> www = world wide wait
Sincerely,
Jed Checketts
Manager
Powerball Industries
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
H2OPWRD
>From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 19:23:23 -0700
>Message-id: <5v9icr$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>
>I concur.
>
>OHannon
>
>tvoivozd wrote:
>>
>> tvoivozhd>>>yes,
>>
>> Brian Mueller wrote:
>>
>> > I was wondering:
>> >
>> > What happens if hydrogen is combusted directly? That is, what is the
>> > result? (besides energy) Water?
>> >
>> > please post messages. :-)
>> > -------------
>> >
>> > Brian Mueller -=muld...@ix.netcom.com=-
>
When you combust Hydrogen and Oxygen in an internal combustion engine the
result is water vapour AND a small amount of NOx because of the use of
ambient air and some oil in the combustion chamber. Because of the zero
NOx emission laws put in place by our government Stan Meyer had to solve
this problem for his automobile retrofit system. He uses the same
"Polarization Process" that starts his water conversion and "Hydrogen
Fracturing Process" to process and separate the Oxygen and Nitrogen into
separate and harmless molecules to be expelled with the water vapour
exhaust. See Stan's latest International News Release for the drawings and
description of this process
Regards,
JW
Robert Erck
In article <19970911203...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD) wrote:
You get water gas. Only when the gas cools below its dew point does a
"vapor" form, as it is commonly understood. I don't know about NOx. It
is thought that NOx can be most conveniently handled with a 3-way cat
convertor.
Robert Erck
In article <3413C5...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
oha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Brian Mueller wrote:
> >
> > Harry H Conover wrote:
> >
> > >Elimination of nitrogen from air would is something not easily
> > >performed. [...]
> >
> > >It is difficult to image a practical device capable of performing
> > >this separation in useful quantities being part of a car.
> >
> > Darn. Oh well, forget it then. :-)
> >
> > What about a fuel cell based on hydrogen? Would that react with the
> > air (producing nasty chemicals) or just with some material in the fuel
> > cell? My understanding is that the only outputs of a hydrogen fuel
> > cell are water, electricity, and heat. Is this correct?
> >
> > >p.s., Worse still, the exhaust of a hydrogen fueled vehicle
> > > combusting hydrogren with air would contain, in addition
> > > to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, ammonia (NH4). This
> > > is real nasty stuff to be belching from an exhaust pipe
> > > in any quantity!
> >
> > Oh man...*definitely* forget the combustion of hydrogen idea! :-)
> >
> > -------------
> > "cogito ergo sum." --Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am")
> >
> > Brian Mueller -=muld...@ix.netcom.com=-
>
Harry H Conover
Robert Erck (bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov) wrote:
:
: You get water gas. Only when the gas cools below its dew point does a
: "vapor" form, as it is commonly understood. I don't know about NOx. It
: is thought that NOx can be most conveniently handled with a 3-way cat
: convertor.
Careful Bob, "Water Gas" is a mixture of H2 and CO, it was the product
of the now defunct municipal gas works that produced illuminating gas.
"Producer's Gas" is a similar product.
Harry C.
Robert Erck
Truly amazing. People can't comprehend the difference between the energy
density of fuels in their liquid states, vs. their gaseous states.
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: >
: > p.s., Worse still, the exhaust of a hydrogen fueled vehicle
: > combusting hydrogren with air would contain, in addition
: > to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, ammonia (NH4). This
: > is real nasty stuff to be belching from an exhaust pipe
: > in any quantity!
Michael Hannon
> : that he does apply infrared light in his "Hydrogen Fracturing Process"
> : as well.
>
> Which patent is that? I have his patent 4936961 (Method for the Production
> of a Fuel Gas) sitting in front of me and their is no mention of infrared
> light in the text of the patent or in its claims. It also is lacking in his
> his diagram of the apparatus.
>
> In this patent Stan specifically cites use of an inductor containing
> 100-turns of #24 wire, 1-inch in diameter...hardly something that would
> resonate at anything approaching either the the rotational or vibrational
> resonance of a water molecule. (In fact, the self resonance of such an
> inductor alone would likely be less than 5-MHz, and when combined with
> his "water capacitor" the resonant frequency would probably fall to the
> hundreds of KHz.
>
> Evidently Stan has a number of ways of disassociating water, all of
> seem to share one common feature: None work any better than ordinary
> electrolysis.
Really, Mr. CON.
Have you ever even seen a Meyer cell work?
NO.
Then what do you really know
about whether it can do what he says or not.
NOTHING.
So, is this a scientific approach
to the use of the Meyer cell
as a possible source of hydrogen energy?
HARDLY.
It's just more bigoted, ignorant
nonsense from an egotistical engineer
who knows nothing about the Meyer cell
but whatever happens to strike his
dim-witted, self-satisfied imagination,
and the lousiest of science.
>
> Stan Meyer's scheme consists of pure fraud or absolute
> incompetence, or some mixture of both. The only thing
> that protects guys like this is the frequent unwillingness of their
> unfortunate victims to come forward to press charges, largely
> because of a reluctance to admit that they were foolish
> enough to invest in such a superficial scam!
Prove it, Mr. CON.
You're nothing but a fraud.
You have NO RESEARCH to substantiate your accusations,
NO KNOWLEDGE of the actual workings of the cell itself,
which you have already demonstrated
by your description of its function.
You're nothing bu a badmouthing windbag
with no experiential knowledge of the Meyer, or Keely,
or Brown, or Patterson, or many other devices
you spend all your time d3enegrating,
without ONE SHRED of working knowldge or experience
about ANY OF THEM.
If that isn't fraudulent activity,
then someone had better
wake up Webster to protect his dictionary,
because you're trying
to rewrite it again for him.
>
> Investment in a car that runs on water? ROFL! Sucker!
>
> Harry C.
Sucker?
A sucker is someone
who listens to negative hearsay
about something from someone who
has never even SEEN the thing
he says is a fraud,
and believes the jerk who is saying it.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Robert Erck wrote:
>
> In article <01bcc093$f6df8320$463d5fcc@suntomo>, "fkasner"
> that superheated steam is simply steam that is at at a higher temperature
> and pressure than our normal 760 torr/100C. If one is at subatmospheric
> pressure, you can get steam at temps below 100C.
> Both liquid water and ice have non-zero vapor pressures.
> Near room temperature, the vapor pressure of water in torr is
> approximately equal to the temperature in C.
> Above the triple point, steam and liquid become indistinguishable.
>
> Microwave spectroscopy probes the rotational spectra of molecules.
> Infrared spectroscopy probes the vibrational spectra of (polar)
> molecules. Raman spectroscopy is used to investigate the phonon spectra of
> solids.
>
> It just so happens that water has vibrational absorption peaks
> at wavenumbers of 1595, 3151.4, 3651.7, 3755.8, 5332 and 6874 per cm.
>
> This corresponds to about 10^14 Hz. That's a very high frequency. It is
> in the infrared region. Instead of using an electric circuit to vibrate
> water apart, you need to shine light at it! Now, where did I put my
> flashlight???
This is all very nice, Mr. Erck,
but have you ever TRIED the Keely or Meyer principles,
or are you simply speculating
about something about which
you have no experiential knowledge
or any other type of working knowledge, again,
like the rest of the pathetic engineers here
who despite their attempts at posing as otherwise,
are just plain lousy scientists,
because they are bigoted engineers
doing nothing but speculating
about something about which they really know nothing.
I've got a pretty good idea where that flashlight is, Bob,
and where you can put it back to
after yet another display of your ignorant egotism.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
H2OPWRD wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: combustion of hydrogen?
> >From: "fkasner" <fka...@mcs.com>
> >Date: 13 Sep 1997 22:24:20 GMT
> >Message-id: <01bcc093$f6df8320$463d5fcc@suntomo>
> >
> >
> >
> >H2OPWRD <h2o...@aol.com> wrote in article
> ><19970913211...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >> B. Erck Wrote:
> >> >Fred Kasner correctly pointed out to me that a vapor is the gaseous form
> >> >of a substance that is at a temperature below its boiling point at the
> >> >ambient pressure.
> >> >
> >> >That is, if you have a bottle half full of liquid water, the space above
> >> >the liquid is occupied by water *vapor* and whatever other gases might
> >be
> >> >in the bottle.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the geat description. Is it truly necessary for the vapour to
> >> be below boiling? What if it is hotter than 212F? It woud still be water
> >> vopour?
> >
> >Once again, if the temperature of the gaseous form of the liquid is at a
> >temperature below the boiling point of the liquid at the ambient pressure
> >the gaseous form of that liquid is frequently called a vapor. If it is
> >above
> >the boiling point temperature for that pressure the gas is NOT properly
> >called a vapor. So to be more specific in an example: if the pressure is
> >the average one atmosphere (760 torr) and the temperature of the
> >gaseous water is 213F the gas in NOT a vapor. If the pressure is one
> >atmosphere and the temperature is 211F the gas of water can be called
> >a vapor. It's as simple as that.
>
> pressure/temp. I think Bob said it is steam. Not really breathable until
> cooled.
> >
> >...
> >I will not comment on the Brown's Gas ideas since I have never found
> >anything unusual about gases produced with or without an electrolyte
> >in the water when electrolyzed.
>
>
> I was not refering to Brown's Gas as I have no experience with that phenomenon.
>
> As for "resonance" in AC used in such
> >electrolysis I do not see how a frequency of AC many many orders of
> >magnitude lower than the very high frequencies of stretching and bending
> >of the hydrogen to oxygen bond in water can have any effect whatsoever
> >in breaking such bonds.
>
> frequency experiments? In Stan Meyer's "Polarization Process" the high
> frequency electricity is primarily very high frequency, high voltage
> potential difference, a physical non-consumed force. I presume you have
> not experimented with this application either.
>
> Even enormously high harmonics of the
> >fundamental would be too low to affect the frequency of such bonds.
> >Get a life, friend!
> >
>
> Regards,
> JW
What really makes these idiots
look even MORE stupid
is the fact that Stan
had to demonstrate the process
before a Patent Office designated expert,
who obviously knew what he was doing,
and passed Stan and his invention,
and now they're arguing about it
without ever even being NEAR the thing!
This is really stupid,
terrible science,
done by bigoted non-participants
who obviously have an agenda of discredit
that has little to do with the real science
of the theories and application involved.
They are practicing the very worst scientific manners,
and showing their prejudicial colors
with no shame for their conduct whatsoever,
having nothing to go on but conjecture
and bad scientific taste..
THEY"VE NEVER EVEN SEEN THE DEVICE -
JUST LIKE NONE OF THEM HAS EVER READ THE MOONHIE BOOK
THEY ALL SAID WAS TERRIBLE AND A FRAUD AS WELL.
WHAT A JOKE.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
> : look even MORE stupid
> : is the fact that Stan
> : had to demonstrate the process
> : before a Patent Office designated expert,
> : who obviously knew what he was doing,
> : and passed Stan and his invention,
> : and now they're arguing about it
> : without ever even being NEAR the thing!
>
> for the U.S. Patent Office as part of the patent process.
> This is easily verified.
>
> Who looks stupid now?
>
> Harry C.
>
Why, Rairoad Harry, fraud of the NG.
The PTO DEFINITELY DOES have an entire process
by which an inventor
who has a working model of a theory
which it does not yet acknowledge
can get a patent by such demonstration
as proof of the principles he is using..
You dim bulb.
This really shows everyone just
what an ignorant egomaniac you really are.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
> electromagnetic waves. (I was trained as an electrical engineer before I
> returned to my first love of physical chemistry.) It is essentially
> impossible to
> generate frequencies of the order of magnitude of 10^14 Herz using
> electrical
> components! That is a flat truth and one of the best arguments that Stan
> Meyer
> claims are fraudulent. You can't generate anything higher in frequency than
> microwaves by electrical circuitry. These at best are energetic enough to
> correspond to the rotational energy states of molecules. Starting with such
>
> frequencies you would have to have incredibly high harmonics to get up
> to wave lengths of several hundreds of reciprocal centimetres (as is found
> in
> the vibrations of water's bonds.) These frequencies are of the order of
> magnitude of 10^14 Herz. It just can't be done by the kind of electrical
> things Meyers insists he uses. How do I know? Because I worked on the
> theory of rotational excitation of molecules as well as experimental
> devices
> using resonant frequencies. I was able to achieve good results without a
> maser circuit but power levels were very low but high enough to detect
> rotational changes. This was detectable when molecules had permanent
> (not induced) dipoles. So now that you have shot yourself in the foot would
> you like to try to make that same stupid claim again?
>
> >
> > Even enormously high harmonics of the
> > >fundamental would be too low to affect the frequency of such bonds.
> > >Get a life, friend!
> > >
> > I breath therefore I live.
> >
> > Regards,
> > JW
> >
> >
>
>
Sorry, Mr. Kasner, but that is pure bullshit.
Let me ask you something -
what type of measuring devices
were you using to test the output?
Can you state without qualification that
NO OTHER FREQUENCIES,
beyond the measurement range
of your test instruments,
in frequency, or waveform,
or of any other nature,
were present?
NO, you cannot.
You have NO IDEA.
You can say you do until you
are unable to speak,
but you have no valid proof
that absolutely no other waves were present,
other than the limitations of the
measuring devices you were using,
and WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR
in the first place.
If you apply one of those 10^14 waves to another
of slightly different frequency in a waveguide,
you will come up with sum and difference frequencies,
WITH HARMONICS of them, some of which may be emitted
as waves of much higher frequency.
And regardless of what you may believe,
those frequencies can even be created
by MECHANICAL DEVICES as well,
and the fact that you have no idea how
such events can take place
in no way negates their existence -
merely the validity of your ignorant presumptions.
Have you ever tested the Meyer circuitry
to separate water?
NO.
Then, do you know what you are talking about?
Absolutely not.
Some science, Mr. Kasner.
You as well had better take a good hard look
at George Wiseman's new Eagle Research
photos of BROWN'S GAS WELDER and flame at
http://www.eagle-research.com/
and think REALLY HARD about
the conjectural garbage
you are claiming as real science
that you're peddling here.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Don Lancaster wrote:
>
> Zac Barnard wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > do you know what energy density per mass is of hydrogen compared to
> > normal gasoline?
> >
> > Zac.
>
> Hydrogen's energy density by weight is unbeatably outstanding.
> Hydrogen's energy density by volume is laughingly pitiful.
> Which is why the Rodriguez hydride work is so exciting.
>
> Gasoline: 13000 wh/ kg 9000 wh/ltr
> Hydrogen 39000 wh/kg 3.5 wh/ltr
>
> The Rodriguez research is by far the most significant hydrogen development
> of the decade. I find it utterly amazing that such real science
> breakthroughs are studiously ignored in a NG with "sci" in its name.
>
> More details in http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse115.pdf
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
>
> Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
> Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
>
> Know your acronymns: url = utterly rancid location
> net = not entirely true
> www = world wide wait
Why don't you ask your sycophantic pals here why they aren't discussing
IT
while spending all their time and energy badmouthing everything else
that doesn't suit their fancy instead?
I've had the SAME question here for months - why is it that these
so-called
scientists (actually they're just engineers posing as scientists), when
left to themselves (which I did for a solid 30 days) to discuss what
they choose, chose basically NOTHING to discuss, when there sre such
things as the Rodriguez work, and much more, which they COULD HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSING.
Instead, this place became a wasteland of non-discussion, peppered by
occasional attacks upon technology they know nothing about, but continue
to attack whenever it is mentioned, when they could be having
discussions of the nature you are bringing up, but DON'T, while leaving
the discussion of those technologies thay know nothing about to those
who wish to discuss them.
The people who wish to discuss those technologies don't wait around to
attack THEIR topics, and really have no desire to do so.
You see, Mr. Lancaster, no one is keeping ANY of them from talking about
the Rodriguez research - they obviously aren't interested in
discussing it - they PREFER to attack subjects they know nothing about,
but spend all their time badmouthing.
I don't call that SCIENCE either.
I call it bullshit, ignorant, totally unscientific nonsense.
You won't find any of us attacking your sentiments towards the
Rodriguez research, whether we believe it to be what you think it is, or
not. It's your right as someone enthusiastically interested in it to
think what you want about it, and discuss it at length here, without
having to attack, without ever having even been witness to, what
others are interested in, whether you agree with them or not - that is
SCIENCE - the enthusiastic exploration and discussion of ALL phenomena,
and scientifically interpreted perceptions of them - not just what YOU,
I or ANYONE else judges worthy of that exploration by their own personal
prejudices.
OHannon
Robert Erck
In article <5v9vu7$l...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:
Yes, that is correct. Another legacy of Americans/English engineers, who
called a mixture of H2 and CO water gas, and CO synthetic gas. (The use
of synthetic gas made it very easy to kill yourself by sticking your head
into an oven). And in the materials field, calcium oxide is "lime",
calcium sulfate it "gypsum", and calcium carbonate is "chalk." Too
confusing for me.
I wrote that because some of the readers of this NG may have little
understanding of phase changes, and may not realize that steam really is a
gas just like other common gases.
jch...@powerball.net
In article <bob_erck-110...@et212pc113.et.anl.gov>,
bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov (Robert Erck) wrote:
>
> Truly amazing. People can't comprehend the difference between the energy
> density of fuels in their liquid states, vs. their gaseous states.
Robert: Since you apparently do not put yourself into the "people"
category, please explain what the difference is for us. While you are at
it, tell us all which stores more hydrogen by volume, liquid hydrogen or
plain water. And for good measure, how about your best guess at which
stores more energy by volume between sodium hydride and liquid hydrogen.
Sincerely,
Jed Checketts
Robert Erck
Robert Erck
> In article <bob_erck-110...@et212pc113.et.anl.gov>,
> bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov (Robert Erck) wrote:
> >
> > Truly amazing. People can't comprehend the difference between the energy
> > density of fuels in their liquid states, vs. their gaseous states.
>
> Robert: Since you apparently do not put yourself into the "people"
> category, please explain what the difference is for us. While you are at
> it, tell us all which stores more hydrogen by volume, liquid hydrogen or
> plain water. And for good measure, how about your best guess at which
> stores more energy by volume between sodium hydride and liquid hydrogen.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jed Checketts
>
-----
I would say that the volume energy density is the amount of energy per
unit volume of fuel. This assumes that the oxidizer is available from the
air. Volume energy density is important when you are looking at the size
of your fuel tank.
The mass energy density is the amount of fuel energy per unit mass (or
weight). The energy contents of gasoline, diesel, and kerosene are all
about 19,000 btu/lb. The energy content of coal is about 15,000 btu/lb.
The energy content of hydrogen is 55,000 btu/lb. The energy content of
methanol is 9,000 btu/lb. The energy content of ethanol is 11,000
btu/lb.
The specific gravity of gasoline is about 0.7, with other fuels having
specific gravities up to about 0.95, so you get 30,000 btu/l for
gasoline.
The specific gravity of gaseous hydrogen is about 0.00009. You'd need to
tow a blimp behind your car to be able to get anywhere. The density of
liquid hydrogen seems to be about 0.07, giving an energy density of 8,000
btu/l. That's about the same as the alcohol fuels. Because the specific
gravity of gaseous hydrogen is so low, you need to compress it to *many*
thousands of psi in order to get a reasonable amount of it into a gas
tank.
Water does not store any energy in it because it already is oxidized. The
mass of hydrogen atoms contained in water is 0.11 grams/cc. For liquid
hydrogen, it is 0.07 g/cc.
If a liter of sodium hydride contains 4500 watt hours of available
hydrogen, this works out to be 15,000 btu/l. If you need water to react
it with, then the energy content decreases proportionally.
This is what the safety handbooks say about sodium hydride "The powder
ignites spointaneously in air. Flammable when exposed to heat or flame.
Potentially explosive raction with water. Normal fire extinguishers
unsuitable. When heated to decomposition it emits toxic fumes of Na2O."
By the way, I found the following fascinating:
coal gas is mostly CH4 with some CO
natural gas is mostly CH4 with little C2H6
producer gas is mostly N2 with some CO and H2
blue water gas is mostly H2 with some CO and CO2
coke oven gas is mostly H2 with a lot of CH4
blast furnace gas is mostly N2 with some Co and CO2
H2OPWRD
Thanks for the geat description. Is it truly necessary for the vapour to
be below boiling? What if it is hotter than 212F? It woud still be water
vopour?
Thefore if your combustion inputs were water, purified or not, processed
into H2, O2, combined with ambient air and any engine lubricants that burn
or are attached to other inputs, you would expell them at near the same
proportions.
The contents of the vapour from the auto exhaust would contain what went
in, chemically processed by electricity, heat and pressure.
Electrolyzed tap water(no electrolyte added) , in my experience, because
of the increased intensity of the H and O burn, when used as an fuel
enhancement at a rate of approximately ten percent power/mi greatly reduces
the normal hydrocarbon pollution expelled under normal 100% petrolium based
fuel usage. I have the performance numbers from a California Inspection
Station test performed on my 350 CI engine some yars ago. I will try to
find and post them.
I have seen numerous examples of some form of electrolyzed or chemically
processed water converted into combustible H2,O2 gas processed under
internal combustion and fed to some type of breathing mask, live body
attached thereto. As I am positive there are some NOx the long term effect
of this could be diliterious. There may also be some CO that could be
harmful as a result of oil combustion if petrolium were the lubricant??
As I stated Stan Meyer has met the challenge of the government's Zero
emmisions and Oxydized fuel requirements with his use of plain water which
alrady contains the Oxygen, not needing to take any from the ambient air to
perform complete combustion and recombination.
He simply polarizes the NOx into harmless Nitrogen and Oxygen that are
useful and harmless to the environment.
Regards,
JW
Harry H Conover
H2OPWRD (h2o...@aol.com) wrote:
: As I stated Stan Meyer has met the challenge of the government's Zero
: emmisions and Oxydized fuel requirements with his use of plain water which
: alrady contains the Oxygen, not needing to take any from the ambient air to
: perform complete combustion and recombination.
Hardly. Stan Meyer is still having difficulty grasping the fundamental
H2OPWRD
>Fred Kasner correctly pointed out to me that a vapor is the gaseous form
>of a substance that is at a temperature below its boiling point at the
>ambient pressure.
>
>That is, if you have a bottle half full of liquid water, the space above
>the liquid is occupied by water *vapor* and whatever other gases might be
>in the bottle.
I knew there was a Fred in here somewhere.
Regards,
JW
fkasner
H2OPWRD <h2o...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970913211...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> B. Erck Wrote:
> >Fred Kasner correctly pointed out to me that a vapor is the gaseous form
> >of a substance that is at a temperature below its boiling point at the
> >ambient pressure.
> >
> >That is, if you have a bottle half full of liquid water, the space above
> >the liquid is occupied by water *vapor* and whatever other gases might
be
> >in the bottle.
> >
>
> Thanks for the geat description. Is it truly necessary for the vapour to
> be below boiling? What if it is hotter than 212F? It woud still be water
> vopour?
Once again, if the temperature of the gaseous form of the liquid is at a
temperature below the boiling point of the liquid at the ambient pressure
the gaseous form of that liquid is frequently called a vapor. If it is
above
the boiling point temperature for that pressure the gas is NOT properly
called a vapor. So to be more specific in an example: if the pressure is
the average one atmosphere (760 torr) and the temperature of the
gaseous water is 213F the gas in NOT a vapor. If the pressure is one
atmosphere and the temperature is 211F the gas of water can be called
a vapor. It's as simple as that.
...
I will not comment on the Brown's Gas ideas since I have never found
anything unusual about gases produced with or without an electrolyte
in the water when electrolyzed. As for "resonance" in AC used in such
electrolysis I do not see how a frequency of AC many many orders of
magnitude lower than the very high frequencies of stretching and bending
of the hydrogen to oxygen bond in water can have any effect whatsoever
in breaking such bonds. Even enormously high harmonics of the
Robert Erck
We can probably call water above the boiling temperature "steam." I think
H2OPWRD
>Subject: Re: combustion of hydrogen?
>Date: 13 Sep 1997 21:41:35 GMT
>Message-id: <5vf1af$c...@news-central.tiac.net>
You prefer hundred year old science. There are many who believe that
science is incomplete.
>Such is the cost of ignorance!
>
> Harry C.
>
Thanks for your unexperienced OPINION Harry.
The ash you speak of has the energy by atomic weight of the proportional
amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen. They are made up and held together by
components moving how fast? The speed of light? Faster? Gee what if you
could tap into that? I think Stan Meyer has done so because his techniques
are NEW, not a hundred years old.
Regards,
JW
H2OPWRD
>Subject: Re: combustion of hydrogen?
>Date: 13 Sep 1997 22:24:20 GMT
>Message-id: <01bcc093$f6df8320$463d5fcc@suntomo>
>
>
>
><19970913211...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> B. Erck Wrote:
>> >Fred Kasner correctly pointed out to me that a vapor is the gaseous form
>> >of a substance that is at a temperature below its boiling point at the
>> >ambient pressure.
>> >
>> >That is, if you have a bottle half full of liquid water, the space above
>> >the liquid is occupied by water *vapor* and whatever other gases might
>be
>> >in the bottle.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the geat description. Is it truly necessary for the vapour to
>> be below boiling? What if it is hotter than 212F? It woud still be water
>> vopour?
>
>Once again, if the temperature of the gaseous form of the liquid is at a
>temperature below the boiling point of the liquid at the ambient pressure
>the gaseous form of that liquid is frequently called a vapor. If it is
>above
>the boiling point temperature for that pressure the gas is NOT properly
>called a vapor. So to be more specific in an example: if the pressure is
>the average one atmosphere (760 torr) and the temperature of the
>gaseous water is 213F the gas in NOT a vapor. If the pressure is one
>atmosphere and the temperature is 211F the gas of water can be called
>a vapor. It's as simple as that.
Thanks, you didn't say what it would be called if above the vapour
pressure/temp. I think Bob said it is steam. Not really breathable until
cooled.
>
>...
>I will not comment on the Brown's Gas ideas since I have never found
>anything unusual about gases produced with or without an electrolyte
>in the water when electrolyzed.
It would not have any extra chemical particulate residue, yes?
I was not refering to Brown's Gas as I have no experience with that phenomenon.
As for "resonance" in AC used in such
>electrolysis I do not see how a frequency of AC many many orders of
>magnitude lower than the very high frequencies of stretching and bending
>of the hydrogen to oxygen bond in water can have any effect whatsoever
>in breaking such bonds.
That is to say you have never performed those ultra-high or matching
frequency experiments? In Stan Meyer's "Polarization Process" the high
frequency electricity is primarily very high frequency, high voltage
potential difference, a physical non-consumed force. I presume you have
not experimented with this application either.
Even enormously high harmonics of the
>fundamental would be too low to affect the frequency of such bonds.
>Get a life, friend!
>
H2OPWRD
>We can probably call water above the boiling temperature "steam." I think
>that superheated steam is simply steam that is at at a higher temperature
>and pressure than our normal 760 torr/100C. If one is at subatmospheric
>pressure, you can get steam at temps below 100C.
>Both liquid water and ice have non-zero vapor pressures.
>Near room temperature, the vapor pressure of water in torr is
>approximately equal to the temperature in C.
>Above the triple point, steam and liquid become indistinguishable.
>
>Microwave spectroscopy probes the rotational spectra of molecules.
>Infrared spectroscopy probes the vibrational spectra of (polar)
>molecules. Raman spectroscopy is used to investigate the phonon spectra of
>solids.
>
>It just so happens that water has vibrational absorption peaks
>at wavenumbers of 1595, 3151.4, 3651.7, 3755.8, 5332 and 6874 per cm.
>
>This corresponds to about 10^14 Hz. That's a very high frequency. It is
>in the infrared region. Instead of using an electric circuit to vibrate
>water apart, you need to shine light at it! Now, where did I put my
>flashlight???
>
>
that he does apply infrared light in his "Hydrogen Fracturing Process" as well.
Regards,
JW
Harry H Conover
H2OPWRD (h2o...@aol.com) wrote:
:
: The ash you speak of has the energy by atomic weight of the proportional
: amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen. They are made up and held together by
: components moving how fast? The speed of light? Faster? Gee what if you
: could tap into that? I think Stan Meyer has done so because his techniques
: are NEW, not a hundred years old.
I strongly suggest learning a bit of elementary science, so that in the
future you will not be taken in by fraudsters like Meyer and his ilk
again.
Be sure an let me know when your investment in Meyer and his side-show
tricks begins to pay off. Until then, I will place my trust in knowledge
that lights and heats our homes, put a man on the moon and returned
him safely to earth, supports our communications including the medium
that you are now utilizing, and has been singularly responsible for every
major technological advancement in the past 150 years or so.
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
H2OPWRD (h2o...@aol.com) wrote:
: >
: If you look at Stan Meyer's patents and technical material you will see
: that he does apply infrared light in his "Hydrogen Fracturing Process"
: as well.
Which patent is that? I have his patent 4936961 (Method for the Production
of a Fuel Gas) sitting in front of me and their is no mention of infrared
light in the text of the patent or in its claims. It also is lacking in his
his diagram of the apparatus.
In this patent Stan specifically cites use of an inductor containing
100-turns of #24 wire, 1-inch in diameter...hardly something that would
resonate at anything approaching either the the rotational or vibrational
resonance of a water molecule. (In fact, the self resonance of such an
inductor alone would likely be less than 5-MHz, and when combined with
his "water capacitor" the resonant frequency would probably fall to the
hundreds of KHz.
Evidently Stan has a number of ways of disassociating water, all of
seem to share one common feature: None work any better than ordinary
electrolysis.
Stan Meyer's scheme consists of pure fraud or absolute
incompetence, or some mixture of both. The only thing
that protects guys like this is the frequent unwillingness of their
unfortunate victims to come forward to press charges, largely
because of a reluctance to admit that they were foolish
enough to invest in such a superficial scam!
Investment in a car that runs on water? ROFL! Sucker!
Harry C.
H2OPWRD
>Subject: Re: combustion of hydrogen?
>Message-id: <5vfidh$n...@news-central.tiac.net>
>
>H2OPWRD (h2o...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >
>: If you look at Stan Meyer's patents and technical material you will see
>: that he does apply infrared light in his "Hydrogen Fracturing Process"
>: as well.
>
>Which patent is that? I have his patent 4936961 (Method for the Production
>of a Fuel Gas) sitting in front of me and their is no mention of infrared
>light in the text of the patent or in its claims. It also is lacking in his
>his diagram of the apparatus.
>
>In this patent Stan specifically cites use of an inductor containing
>100-turns of #24 wire, 1-inch in diameter...hardly something that would
>resonate at anything approaching either the the rotational or vibrational
>resonance of a water molecule. (In fact, the self resonance of such an
>inductor alone would likely be less than 5-MHz, and when combined with
>his "water capacitor" the resonant frequency would probably fall to the
>hundreds of KHz.
>
>
Try U.S. patent number 4,826,581. This one is the "Hydrogen Fracturing
Process". The number you have is only for the "Electrical Polarization
Process".
Regards,
JW
fkasner
Robert Erck <bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov> wrote in article
<bob_erck-130...@et212pc113.et.anl.gov>...
> In article <01bcc093$f6df8320$463d5fcc@suntomo>, "fkasner"
> <fka...@mcs.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > I will not comment on the Brown's Gas ideas since I have never found
> > anything unusual about gases produced with or without an electrolyte
> > in the water when electrolyzed. As for "resonance" in AC used in such
> > electrolysis I do not see how a frequency of AC many many orders of
> > magnitude lower than the very high frequencies of stretching and
bending
> > of the hydrogen to oxygen bond in water can have any effect whatsoever
> > in breaking such bonds. Even enormously high harmonics of the
> > fundamental would be too low to affect the frequency of such bonds.
> > Get a life, friend!
>
> We can probably call water above the boiling temperature "steam." I
think
> that superheated steam is simply steam that is at at a higher temperature
> and pressure than our normal 760 torr/100C. If one is at subatmospheric
> pressure, you can get steam at temps below 100C.
> Both liquid water and ice have non-zero vapor pressures.
> Near room temperature, the vapor pressure of water in torr is
> approximately equal to the temperature in C.
> Above the triple point, steam and liquid become indistinguishable.
Sorry, you are thinking of the critical point. Above the critical point
there is no
distinction between gas and liquid. The triple point is the
temperature-pressure
combination that allows all three phases (solid, liquid, and gas) to exist
in
equilibrium with one another.
>
> Microwave spectroscopy probes the rotational spectra of molecules.
> Infrared spectroscopy probes the vibrational spectra of (polar)
> molecules. Raman spectroscopy is used to investigate the phonon spectra
of
> solids.
Non-polar molecules exhibit vibrational spectra or what are those things I
was
just looking at today for benzene, for carbon tetrachloride, and for
methane?
Raman spectroscopy can be used examining spectra of liquids and gases
as well. While a graduate student my research group did Raman on solutions
of strong electrolytes in water (IR is almost impossible for water
solutions
since water has so much IR absorption.) The only example of exclusionary
behavior between IR and Raman is that a radially symmetric molecule can
have a vibration active either in the IR or the Raman but not both.
>
> It just so happens that water has vibrational absorption peaks
> at wavenumbers of 1595, 3151.4, 3651.7, 3755.8, 5332 and 6874 per cm.
>
> This corresponds to about 10^14 Hz. That's a very high frequency. It is
> in the infrared region. Instead of using an electric circuit to vibrate
> water apart, you need to shine light at it! Now, where did I put my
> flashlight???
>
That's your infra-red flashlight of course.
fkasner
H2OPWRD <h2o...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970914014...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: combustion of hydrogen?
> >From: "fkasner" <fka...@mcs.com>
> >Date: 13 Sep 1997 22:24:20 GMT
> >Message-id: <01bcc093$f6df8320$463d5fcc@suntomo>
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks, you didn't say what it would be called if above the vapour
> pressure/temp. I think Bob said it is steam. Not really breathable
until
> cooled.
> >
> >...
> >I will not comment on the Brown's Gas ideas since I have never found
> >anything unusual about gases produced with or without an electrolyte
> >in the water when electrolyzed.
>
> It would not have any extra chemical particulate residue, yes?
>
> I was not refering to Brown's Gas as I have no experience with that
phenomenon.
>
> As for "resonance" in AC used in such
> >electrolysis I do not see how a frequency of AC many many orders of
> >magnitude lower than the very high frequencies of stretching and bending
> >of the hydrogen to oxygen bond in water can have any effect whatsoever
> >in breaking such bonds.
>
> That is to say you have never performed those ultra-high or matching
> frequency experiments? In Stan Meyer's "Polarization Process" the high
> frequency electricity is primarily very high frequency, high voltage
> potential difference, a physical non-consumed force. I presume you have
> not experimented with this application either.
On the contrary I have! I've done many experiments in ultra high frequency
electromagnetic waves. (I was trained as an electrical engineer before I
returned to my first love of physical chemistry.) It is essentially
impossible to
generate frequencies of the order of magnitude of 10^14 Herz using
electrical
components! That is a flat truth and one of the best arguments that Stan
Meyer
claims are fraudulent. You can't generate anything higher in frequency than
microwaves by electrical circuitry. These at best are energetic enough to
correspond to the rotational energy states of molecules. Starting with such
frequencies you would have to have incredibly high harmonics to get up
to wave lengths of several hundreds of reciprocal centimetres (as is found
in
the vibrations of water's bonds.) These frequencies are of the order of
magnitude of 10^14 Herz. It just can't be done by the kind of electrical
things Meyers insists he uses. How do I know? Because I worked on the
theory of rotational excitation of molecules as well as experimental
devices
using resonant frequencies. I was able to achieve good results without a
maser circuit but power levels were very low but high enough to detect
rotational changes. This was detectable when molecules had permanent
(not induced) dipoles. So now that you have shot yourself in the foot would
you like to try to make that same stupid claim again?
>
> Even enormously high harmonics of the
> >fundamental would be too low to affect the frequency of such bonds.
> >Get a life, friend!
> >
> I breath therefore I live.
>
> Regards,
> JW
>
>
Fred Kasner
msi...@tefbbs.com
Superheated steam is steam whose temperature is above the boiling
point for the pressure of the steam.
Simon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>thanks for the geat description. Is it truly necessary for the vapour to
>> be below boiling? What if it is hotter than 212F? It woud still be water
>> vopour?
>
>Once again, if the temperature of the gaseous form of the liquid is at a
>temperature below the boiling point of the liquid at the ambient pressure
>the gaseous form of that liquid is frequently called a vapor. If it is
>above
>the boiling point temperature for that pressure the gas is NOT properly
>called a vapor. So to be more specific in an example: if the pressure is
>the average one atmosphere (760 torr) and the temperature of the
>gaseous water is 213F the gas in NOT a vapor. If the pressure is one
>atmosphere and the temperature is 211F the gas of water can be called
>a vapor. It's as simple as that.
>
>...
>I will not comment on the Brown's Gas ideas since I have never found
>anything unusual about gases produced with or without an electrolyte
>in the water when electrolyzed. As for "resonance" in AC used in such
>electrolysis I do not see how a frequency of AC many many orders of
>magnitude lower than the very high frequencies of stretching and bending
>of the hydrogen to oxygen bond in water can have any effect whatsoever
>in breaking such bonds. Even enormously high harmonics of the
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: Are you aware of the salient fact
: that the actual ENERGY CONTENT LEVELS
: of the 11th and 12th harmonics
: of a fundamental pulse-type vibration
: are much higher than the fundamental,
: or any lower harmonic?
Citation please. Fourier analysis doesn't appear to support
this conention. (Or is this still another thing that science
has gotten wrong?)
In Meyer's situtation, it would seem
to make little difference even if your statement were true (which it
isn't). Accordingly to the circuit diagram shown on Sheet 2 of
his patent 4936961, Meyer is taking the positive output of a pulse
transformer and feeding it though a diode and a 100-turn inductor
(his "charging choke") into his "water capacitor." This effectively
blocks the upper frequency components from ever reaching the "water
capacitor." In fact, the circuit itelf is strikingly similar to
a power supply rectifier and filter circuit for the production of
dc (which is essentially what it likely does). It would be a
trivial exercise to hook a scope on to verify this, although I doubt
if Stan would allow that.
: No. Mr. Kasner.
:
: If you doubt that,
: why not consider the energy levels
: in blue versus red light.
What possible connection does this have to the subject under
discussion?
: You are so ignorant of things
: about which you know absolutely nothing,
: yet seem quite pleased with yourself to
: offer ignorant opinions about them.
Sound's like "Agent Orange Wanker Hannon" is performing
self analysis again. ;->
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
H2OPWRD (h2o...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Subject: Re: combustion of hydrogen?
: >From: con...@tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Thanks. I believe I had it at one time, but misplaced it. I'll download
another copy from Womplex and take a look. (I do recall seeing a drawing
of something with lasers shooting into it...4826581 may be it.)
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Harry H Conover wrote:
: >
: > H2OPWRD (h2o...@aol.com) wrote:
: > : >
: > : If you look at Stan Meyer's patents and technical material you will see
: > : that he does apply infrared light in his "Hydrogen Fracturing Process"
: > : as well.
: >
: > Which patent is that? I have his patent 4936961 (Method for the Production
: > of a Fuel Gas) sitting in front of me and their is no mention of infrared
: > light in the text of the patent or in its claims. It also is lacking in his
: > his diagram of the apparatus.
: >
: > In this patent Stan specifically cites use of an inductor containing
: > 100-turns of #24 wire, 1-inch in diameter...hardly something that would
: > resonate at anything approaching either the the rotational or vibrational
: > resonance of a water molecule. (In fact, the self resonance of such an
: > inductor alone would likely be less than 5-MHz, and when combined with
: > his "water capacitor" the resonant frequency would probably fall to the
: > hundreds of KHz.
: >
: > seem to share one common feature: None work any better than ordinary
: > electrolysis.
: Really, Mr. CON.
: Have you ever even seen a Meyer cell work?
: NO.
: Then what do you really know
: about whether it can do what he says or not.
: NOTHING.
If you could read, Agent Orange Wanker Hannon, you'd realize that
the post you are replying to involves discussion of one of Meyer's
patents. The fact that you cannot even respond to the discussion
at hand, suggest you have not either bothered to obtain a copy of
this patent, or are incapable of understanding its content and
claims.
So, not surprisingly, you have nothing whatsoever to contribute to
the discussion -- once again.
: So, is this a scientific approach
: to the use of the Meyer cell
: as a possible source of hydrogen energy?
: HARDLY.
: It's just more bigoted, ignorant
: nonsense from an egotistical engineer
: who knows nothing about the Meyer cell
: but whatever happens to strike his
: dim-witted, self-satisfied imagination,
: and the lousiest of science.
Again, lot of nasty words without any substance.
: >
: > Stan Meyer's scheme consists of pure fraud or absolute
: > incompetence, or some mixture of both. The only thing
: > that protects guys like this is the frequent unwillingness of their
: > unfortunate victims to come forward to press charges, largely
: > because of a reluctance to admit that they were foolish
: > enough to invest in such a superficial scam!
:
: Prove it, Mr. CON.
: You're nothing but a fraud.
I suggest that you look up the meaning of "fraud" in your
dictionary, Wanker Hannon, since you evidently have no clue
concerning its meaning.
: You have NO RESEARCH to substantiate your accusations,
: NO KNOWLEDGE of the actual workings of the cell itself,
: which you have already demonstrated
: by your description of its function.
: You're nothing bu a badmouthing windbag
: with no experiential knowledge of the Meyer, or Keely,
: or Brown, or Patterson, or many other devices
: you spend all your time d3enegrating,
: without ONE SHRED of working knowldge or experience
: about ANY OF THEM.
: If that isn't fraudulent activity,
: then someone had better
: wake up Webster to protect his dictionary,
: because you're trying
: to rewrite it again for him.
Again, I suggest you look up the meaning of "fraud."
: >
: > Investment in a car that runs on water? ROFL! Sucker!
: >
: > Harry C.
:
: Sucker?
: A sucker is someone
: who listens to negative hearsay
: about something from someone who
: has never even SEEN the thing
: he says is a fraud,
: and believes the jerk who is saying it.
Thank you for voicing your profound insight in connection with
this subject.
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
H2OPWRD
>From: "fkasner" <fka...@mcs.com>
>Date: 14 Sep 1997 07:54:31 GMT
>Message-id: <01bcc0e3$a2362d60$463d5fcc@suntomo>
>> >Date: 13 Sep 1997 22:24:20 GMT
>> >Message-id: <01bcc093$f6df8320$463d5fcc@suntomo>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >H2OPWRD <h2o...@aol.com> wrote in article
>> ><19970913211...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> >> B. Erck Wrote:
>> >> >Fred Kasner correctly pointed out to me that a vapor is the gaseous
>form
>> As for "resonance" in AC used in such
>> >electrolysis I do not see how a frequency of AC many many orders of
>> >magnitude lower than the very high frequencies of stretching and bending
>> >of the hydrogen to oxygen bond in water can have any effect whatsoever
>> >in breaking such bonds.
>>
I shot myself nowhere. You made no mention of the use of voltage being
the dominant force as having any possible effects (amplification??) in the
process. I do not know that there is also some other electrical stimulus
involved that has not been disclosed or discerned in the process.
And you have not seen his cell. You have not put your hands on it and felt
it stay cold while producing copious amounts of disassociated water, over a
period of hours ,driven by a simple permanently magnetized auto generator
and his "black box" power converter. He is not performing electrolysis and
the experts written about in the "Electronics and Wireless World" article
that measured the power input in the milliamp range concured with that
statement.
>>
>> Even enormously high harmonics of the
>> >fundamental would be too low to affect the frequency of such bonds.
>> >Get a life, friend!
>> >
Robert Erck
In article <01bcc0e1$3dc7a540$463d5fcc@suntomo>, "fkasner"
<fka...@mcs.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> Sorry, you are thinking of the critical point. Above the critical point
> there is no
> distinction between gas and liquid. The triple point is the
> temperature-pressure
> combination that allows all three phases (solid, liquid, and gas) to exist
> in
> equilibrium with one another.
>
Right again. I was paying too much attention to the energy content of
gasoline, and must have inhaled too many vapors!!
[...]
> >
> That's your infra-red flashlight of course.
The batteries on my flashlight are getting so weak that I think most of
the radiation if coming out in the IR!
Robert Erck
In article <5vg6r6$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
oha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>[...]
Are you aware of the salient fact
that the actual ENERGY CONTENT LEVELS
of the 11th and 12th harmonics
of a fundamental pulse-type vibration
are much higher than the fundamental,
or any lower harmonic?
[...]
> OHannon
How does he think up this stuff? And it is in poetry form too. But it
doesn't rhyme. I can improve on it:
-Are you aware of the salient fact
-how resonators vibrate and react,
-with fundamental pulse-type vibration
-(not confused with quantized rotation)
-That the 11th and 12th harmonic in motion
-has more energy than the entire ocean.
-and more than even the lowest harmonic,
-to think elsewise is truly moronic.
Thank you. Thank you. Now what was that nasty limerick that I recently heard?
There was a young man named Hannon,
who shot his mouth off like a cannon......
Harry H Conover
: Why, Rairoad Harry, fraud of the NG.
: The PTO DEFINITELY DOES have an entire process
: by which an inventor
: who has a working model of a theory
: which it does not yet acknowledge
: can get a patent by such demonstration
: as proof of the principles he is using..
Please post a citation reflecting such a policy. As of now,
such a policy exists only within the confines of your somewhat
disturbed and clueless mind!
Stop taking up useful net bandwidth with your mindless dribble!
Harry C.
Kevin Jones
Not bad at all, brought the first smile of the day!
K. Jones
--
"Opinions expressed are mine and not those of Rohm and Haas Company"
Kevin Jones
H2OPWRD wrote:
> I shot myself nowhere. You made no mention of the use of voltage being
> the dominant force as having any possible effects (amplification??) in the
> process. I do not know that there is also some other electrical stimulus
> involved that has not been disclosed or discerned in the process.
>
> And you have not seen his cell. You have not put your hands on it and felt
> it stay cold while producing copious amounts of disassociated water, over a
> period of hours ,driven by a simple permanently magnetized auto generator
> and his "black box" power converter.
No offense JW, but watching it bubble like crazy, and "feeling" its
temperature is hardly the kind of proof that is usally required in a
SCI* newsgroup. You are going to continue to get a hard time about it,
until some hard numbers are shown, and it can be reproduced and verified
by an independant body.
> He is not performing electrolysis and
I know you are convinced of that, but for the reasons I stated above,
I'd be
amazed if you convinced any "science types" in this newsgroup otherwise.
> the experts written about in the "Electronics and Wireless World" article
> that measured the power input in the milliamp range concured with that
> statement.
Apparently, some "science types" consider "Electronics and Wireless
World"
with the same authority of truth as the "National Inquirer", thus that
particular citation will usually be dismissed by those you are
attempting
to convince. I know some months back you were putting some considerable
effort to contact the persons listed in the article as being present and
verifying what they saw (I admire your efforts to verify and show
credibility of those citations. You are the only one of the
"true belivers"(tm) that has not sunk to the level of name-calling, etc,
but
instead have shown a true interest in seperating the wheat from the
chaff)
I was wondering where the results of your research stand presently?
> >>
> >> Even enormously high harmonics of the
> >> >fundamental would be too low to affect the frequency of such bonds.
> >> >Get a life, friend!
> >> >
> >> I breath therefore I live.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> JW
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Fred Kasner
--
H2OPWRD
>Subject: Re: combustion of hydrogen?
>Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:10:29 -0400
>Message-id: <341C7C...@rohmhaasNOSPAM.com>
>
>H2OPWRD wrote:
>
>> I shot myself nowhere. You made no mention of the use of voltage being
>> the dominant force as having any possible effects (amplification??) in the
>> process. I do not know that there is also some other electrical stimulus
>> involved that has not been disclosed or discerned in the process.
>>
>> And you have not seen his cell. You have not put your hands on it and felt
>> it stay cold while producing copious amounts of disassociated water, over a
>> period of hours ,driven by a simple permanently magnetized auto generator
>> and his "black box" power converter.
>
>No offense JW, but watching it bubble like crazy, and "feeling" its
>temperature is hardly the kind of proof that is usally required in a
>SCI* newsgroup. You are going to continue to get a hard time about it,
>until some hard numbers are shown, and it can be reproduced and verified
>by an independant body.
>
may say sci. but it also says energy.hydrogen. Two out of three ain't bad.
It is the only NG that comes up on a "hydrogen" word search.
All I know is what I have experienced looks and "feels" very little like
electrolysis.
I have been hoping to find one interested enough in this work to make a
serious effort to duplicate it. I have technical manuals that should have
enough information. As I said I had a man in the past who thought sure he
could do it but due to time and financial constraints he had to abandon the
effort. I have recently interested a new acquaintance who happens to be
intimately involved in the work Ballard Power is doing with their cells.
If I had a few thousand dollars to throw around I would higher someone to
do it for me. If I did verify it I doubt I would share it with anyone
because I would be too busy working with people to do developements with
Stan and noone here would believe ME anyay. Just as they do not believe
those that have duplicated Brown's Gas. They would want to verify my work
and they would have to have their work verified and they would have to have
that work verified and...........sheesh!!! There are only so many device
retrofit configurations to develope with Stan and the first "true
believers" to cough the dough up will have more and better project options
to develope. Besides it would be illegal for me to do anyting more than
verify it. That may not even be legal?? It would be illegal to use it in
any commercial manner. I also have signed nondisclosure agreements with
Stan and would honer them as well.
>
>
>> He is not performing electrolysis and
>
>I know you are convinced of that, but for the reasons I stated above,
>I'd be
>amazed if you convinced any "science types" in this newsgroup otherwise.
>
excercise in futility and in a effort that may help a few lurkers learn
that there is more than the mainstream beliefs about how or when hydrogen
from water will become our fuel source. I am an idealist and Stan's work,
if real, is truly the ideal and deserves all my attention. I believe most
other hydrogen technologies, PEM's and A55/A21 fuel in particular are
nothing more than brigde technologies, if that. I don't believe any form
of centralized production and distribution of hydrogen will ever be
installed because of the danger and cost, and because we are in an age of
decentralization and miniaturization that is a main theme in the
"Megatrends" of our age. The personal computers we are using are a prime
example of this trend. The computer is also one of the main reason that
technology and knowledge are expanding at a geometric rate. We will
discover nine times more in the next ten years than we have in the last
ninty years.
>> the experts written about in the "Electronics and Wireless World" article
>> that measured the power input in the milliamp range concured with that
>> statement.
>
>Apparently, some "science types" consider "Electronics and Wireless
>World"
>with the same authority of truth as the "National Inquirer", thus that
>particular citation will usually be dismissed by those you are
>attempting
>to convince.
I care as much about what the "science types" think, as they do I.
The facts are clearly stated in the article and the witnesses were
credible. Admiral Griffith of the Royal Academy of Navel Architects had a
long association with Stan Meyer prior to his death and was a longtime
advocate in overseas negotiations. I don't have any reservations
regarding the credibility of the other associates that were with him during
the measurement of the power input to Stan's cell.
I know some months back you were putting some considerable
>effort to contact the persons listed in the article as being present and
>verifying what they saw (I admire your efforts to verify and show
>credibility of those citations. You are the only one of the
>"true belivers"(tm) that has not sunk to the level of name-calling, etc,
>but
>instead have shown a true interest in seperating the wheat from the
>chaff)
> I was wondering where the results of your research stand presently?
I have been waiting for Ian Johnson to return to Oxford and get a copy of
the "Wireless World" article he said he would mail to me. (Do they have the
"Inquirer" at Oxford?) After that I will try to contact the writer and
other witnesses for their unedited recitation of the facts. I have little
doubt that they saw anything different than what I have seen AND they were
allowed to measure the power input of the cell and found it to be in the
miliamp range as stated in the article. It also was stated (somewhere?)
that a breadboard cicuit duplicating Stan's process was built at Oxford.
Ian Johnson expressed that it would be impossibe for him to make the time
to find the department?/professor?/students? who accomplished this, but if
I had their college directory and the $$$$ for the phone calls I bet I
could find out the details.
Don Lancaster
Zac Barnard wrote:
>
>
> do you know what energy density per mass is of hydrogen compared to
> normal gasoline?
>
> Zac.
Hydrogen's energy density by weight is unbeatably outstanding.
Hydrogen's energy density by volume is laughingly pitiful.
Which is why the Rodriguez hydride work is so exciting.
Gasoline: 13000 wh/ kg 9000 wh/ltr
Hydrogen 39000 wh/kg 3.5 wh/ltr
The Rodriguez research is by far the most significant hydrogen development
of the decade. I find it utterly amazing that such real science
breakthroughs are studiously ignored in a NG with "sci" in its name.
More details in http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse115.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Know your acronymns: url = utterly rancid location
net = not entirely true
www = world wide wait
James Logajan
Don Lancaster (d...@tinaja.com) wrote:
: Hydrogen's energy density by weight is unbeatably outstanding.
: Hydrogen's energy density by volume is laughingly pitiful.
: Which is why the Rodriguez hydride work is so exciting.
: Gasoline: 13000 wh/ kg 9000 wh/ltr
: Hydrogen 39000 wh/kg 3.5 wh/ltr
: The Rodriguez research is by far the most significant hydrogen development
: of the decade. I find it utterly amazing that such real science
: breakthroughs are studiously ignored in a NG with "sci" in its name.
: More details in http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse115.pdf
Another source of information is the "Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Letter" with
highlights listed at:
Check out the article at:
http://www.ttcorp.com/nha/thl/feb97.htm
The September issue indicates that a patent has been issued to Rodriguez and
Baker.
I started reading this newsgroup maybe 4 days ago; mostly because
of the thread "Nitrogren cars" (sic) thread on sci.physics. Alan "Uncle Al"
Schwartz was attacking liquid nitrogen cars (which deserved the attack)
and continued on to attack fuel cells and hydrogen fuel in general. It was
mostly the form of the attack that brought me into the fray. "Uncle Al" is
a bright guy (guess he is a member of Mensa), but not exactly housebroken.
I thought I would try his own tactics on him; not a style I like, and
will avoid in the future.
I was entirely unaware of this work and don't recall seeing anything about
it before. If the claims are anywhere near accurate, it is quite a
breakthrough and does deserve more public exposure.
P.S. As a newcomer, I have to say that in general I have yet to figure
out the currently running threads; except for the occasional post,
such as by Mr. Lancaster.
Michael Hannon
Kevin Jones wrote:
>
> H2OPWRD wrote:
>
> > I shot myself nowhere. You made no mention of the use of voltage being
> > the dominant force as having any possible effects (amplification??) in the
> > process. I do not know that there is also some other electrical stimulus
> > involved that has not been disclosed or discerned in the process.
> >
> > And you have not seen his cell. You have not put your hands on it and felt
> > it stay cold while producing copious amounts of disassociated water, over a
> > period of hours ,driven by a simple permanently magnetized auto generator
> > and his "black box" power converter.
>
> No offense JW, but watching it bubble like crazy, and "feeling" its
> temperature is hardly the kind of proof that is usally required in a
> SCI* newsgroup. You are going to continue to get a hard time about it,
> until some hard numbers are shown, and it can be reproduced and verified
> by an independant body.
>
How about the results of some independent testing (from someone who did
more than nothing but repeatedly flap his jaw about something he has no
knowledge of, claiming to be a "science type," but with NO experiential,
or any other, basis for his conjecture, thus showing us that he does not
understand what real science is in the first place):
From:
http://www.iinet.net.au/~steveb/danforth/dan1.html
"In the original setup that Stan Meyer showed us, he used 36 volts as
the basic potential applied to the reaction chamber. He also commented
that stainless steel ( 410 not 403 ) was the only metal that could be
used as oxides formed with all others. His original chamber used 18 inch
long by 0.375 inch diameter (o.d.) rod surrounded by 1 inch diameter
(i.d.) 16 inch long pipe.
The reason for the difference in length is for mechanical ease of
construction. My prototype used 14 inch long rod and 12 inch long pipe
of similar diameters as the drawing indicates.
Having a severe lack of parts diversity here in Sri-Lanka, I was only
able to obtain a 24 volt. 8 amp transformer and built my circuitry
around that. The final output is 20 volts with Ml reading 10 amps to the
pulsing circuit which generates a symetricel squarewave ( 50% duty cycle
) to the flyback inductor connected in series with the chamber as the
schematic shows. The flyback high voltage spike is directed across the
chamber via c* end d*. The use of a high voltage spike alone, without
the current being delivered through the liquid, will not cause the
disassociation to take place. This I verified using an ignition coil in
place of the inductor and applied the secondary with halfwave
rectification and blocking capacitor to prevent burn out to the chamber
with no results. Apparently the current in the water aligns the
molecules approprately to allow the high voltege spike to do its work
which in my opinion is the stimulation of molecular resonance. Once
Stan's unit was made to begin breakdown (which takes 6 to 8 seconds) he
was able to reduce both current and voltage to miniscule proportions. I
attribute this to sympathetic oscillation of the aligned molecules,
requiring very little in the way of additional excitation. A phenomena
akin to Tesla's super resonance... resulting in Stan discovering that he
only had to supply three pulses in ten to satisfy the requirement of the
chamber. I have not yet had the opportunity to duplicate this portion of
the experiment but, in time I will.
Duplication of the device described in these pages, however, will
produce the phenomena and hopefully launch other enterprising end
inventive souls on to designing their own refined models. It would be
nice to have feedback so that we can all collectively work to bring
about the transition to non-pollution energy.
P.S.- The electrical circuit is by no means optimised, but represents
instead the result of parts availability here. Any good technician could
improve on it quite readily.
There are two primary frequencies that produce the best results. They
are 143,762 Hz and 43430 Hz. The former is about 50% more efficient, but
it seems that just about any frequency between 9 KHz and 143762 KHz
works quite well). This is because the nature of the wave form (a spike
) is rich in harmonics and one of them is bound to be close to one of
the two
primary frequencies.
Use of permanent magnets may also increase efficiency. I'll give you the
outcome of that attempt in my next letter along with the plans for what
I hope to be a much improved version.
Note: Sub-harmonics of the two primary frequencies at which dissociation
will occur:
43430 Hz 143,762 HZ
SUBHARMONIC SUBHABMONIC
1st 21715 HZ 1st 71881 HZ
2nd 14476.67 HZ 2nd 47920.67 HZ
3rd 15517.5 HZ 3rd 35840.1 HZ
4th 8686 Hz 4th 28752.4 HZ
*1500 VOLTS IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR MOLECULAR RINGING TO BEGIN.
>>>(Note: The person doing this testing does not consider the effects of any
type of water hammer which may be caused, present, and contributive in
this process either, although implying it indirectly.)<<<
The ball is now in your court.
Let's get the game started and have as many players as possible.
>From the legal stand point it can be argued in an international court of
law that the vital need of this technology by every nation
to aleviate the critical threat to our environment globally is so greet
as to justify nullification of proprietry rights if those rights are
used to delay or prevent distribution of the technology and if such
delay or prevention - including measured and / or levied
distribution so as to restrict or limit its use, or for the purposes of
financial profit isolate significent economic groups from its use
and if such acts previously mentioned can be shown to cause an increased
danger to life, persons involved in such acts can be
convicted of intent to do bodily harm by crime of omission.
(ANY MATERIAL SENT TO `TUNING IN' WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE ABOVE
WRITER.)"
(Snipped: typically egotistical, ignorant, bigoted opinions of
engineer-posing-as-scientist in this science NG)
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Bill Ward wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I looked over the schematic at the site and have a few comments:
>
> >From:
> > http://www.iinet.net.au/~steveb/danforth/dan1.html
>
> >"In the original setup that Stan Meyer showed us, he used 36 volts as
> >the basic potential applied to the reaction chamber. He also commented
> >that stainless steel ( 410 not 403 ) was the only metal that could be
> >used as oxides formed with all others. His original chamber used 18 inch
> >long by 0.375 inch diameter (o.d.) rod surrounded by 1 inch diameter
> >(i.d.) 16 inch long pipe.
> >The reason for the difference in length is for mechanical ease of
> >construction. My prototype used 14 inch long rod and 12 inch long pipe
> >of similar diameters as the drawing indicates.
>
> >Having a severe lack of parts diversity here in Sri-Lanka, I was only
> >able to obtain a 24 volt. 8 amp transformer and built my circuitry
> >around that. The final output is 20 volts with Ml reading 10 amps to the
> >pulsing circuit which generates a symetricel squarewave ( 50% duty cycle
>
>
PURE BULLSHIT, Mr. Ward, and you know it. The 10 amps at 24 volts (240
watts) is sent to the primary of the high-voltage circuit, where it is
converted to high-voltage, very low amperage as described in the next
section below, at 50% duty cycle, where only HALF of the original
10amps at 24v input ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (120Watts) is actually used.
There is no TV flyback transformer I know of that will hand 10 amps at
its high-voltage output.
As an engineer, for you to make such spurious emmissions is beyond
belief, and shows an open intent to obfuscate and deny actual honest
results, and you know it.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> >) to the flyback inductor connected in series with the chamber as the
> >schematic shows. The flyback high voltage spike is directed across ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >chamber via c* end d*. The use of a high voltage spike alone, without
> >the current being delivered through the liquid, will not cause the
> >disassociation to take place.
>
> That's in accordance with known principles of electrolysis. No current,
> no gas.
More crap from someone who is supposed to be an engineer.
The output of a flyback tramnsformer IS and has ALWAYS BEEN high volts
and milliamps of current. ANYONE who has seen the ouput coil on a
flyback transformer can clearly see very thin conductors, capable of
only very small amperages, and anyone who knows the use of flybacks in
TV's knows that they produce thousands of volts at very low amperage
levels.
More lying and bad engineering (let alone science) conduct from you, Mr.
Ward.
This circuit is ANYTHING BUT a standard electrolysis circuit, and you
know it.
>
> >This I verified using an ignition coil in
> >place of the inductor and applied the secondary with halfwave
> >rectification and blocking capacitor to prevent burn out to the chamber
> >with no results. Apparently the current in the water aligns the
> >molecules approprately to allow the high voltege spike to do its work
> >which in my opinion is the stimu- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >lation of molecular resonance.
>
> Or simply electrolyses it.
PURE BALONEY, and you know it.
>
> >Once
> >Stan's unit was made to begin breakdown (which takes 6 to 8 seconds) he
> >was able to reduce both current and voltage to miniscule proportions. I
> >attribute this to sympathetic oscillation of the aligned molecules,
> >requiring very little in the way of additional excitation. A phenomena
> >akin to Tesla's super resonance... resulting in Stan discovering that he
> >only had to supply three pulses in ten to satisfy the requirement of the
> >chamber. I have not yet had the opportunity to duplicate this portion of
> >the experiment but, in time I will.
>
> Note the experimenter did not duplicate Meyer's claims. Current was
> necessary to produce gas, consistent with ordinary electrolysis.
More lies. Current is always required in the primary of this type of
high-voltage circuit, but the OUTPUT END of the circuit, which is what
is feeding power to the cell, is a flyback transformer, outputting
thousands of volts, totally incapable of handling anything but a few
milliamps of current without burning up instantly.
This is very interesting, Mr. Ward, because you are obviously, to ANYONE
WITH A MODICUM OF KNOWLEDGE, lying your pants off, and showing everyone
here your intentions of "denial at all cost" of what is going on.
You have shown us all your colors, Mr. Ward.
>
> >Duplication of the device described in these pages, however, will
> >produce the phenomena and hopefully launch other enterprising end
> >inventive souls on to designing their own refined models. It would be
> >nice to have feedback so that we can all collectively work to bring
> >about the transition to non-pollution energy.
>
> >P.S.- The electrical circuit is by no means optimised, but represents
> >instead the result of parts availability here. Any good technician could
> >improve on it quite readily.
>
> >There are two primary frequencies that produce the best results. They
> >are 143,762 Hz and 43430 Hz. The former is about 50% more efficient, but
> >it seems that just about any frequency between 9 KHz and 143762 KHz
> >works quite well). This is because the nature of the wave form (a spike
> >) is rich in harmonics and one of them is bound to be close to one of
> >the two primary frequencies.
>
> Or that the frequency actually has very little, if any, influence on gas
> production compared to the current. The frequencies look suspiciously
> like resonances of the coil with itself and the capacitor (L and C# in
> the schematic).
MOre fabricative crapola, MR. Ward, and you know it as well.
"any frequency between 9 KHz and 143762 KHz works quite well). This is
because the nature of the wave form of a spike is rich in harmonics"
is hardly what you would call a description denying the relevance of
frequency in the process.
>
> >Use of permanent magnets may also increase efficiency.
>
> How and why?
Gee, I don't know, Mr. Ward (actually I do), but YOU'RE the ENGINEER -
why would magnets help?
>
> >I'll give you the
> >outcome of that attempt in my next letter along with the plans for what
> >I hope to be a much improved version.
>
> And where is that report?
I don't know. Mr. Ward.
Where is your report on your testing of ANYTHING?
After reading your comments here,
where is proof that you have ever read,
or have ANY working knowledge of,
any electronics material on flyback transformers,
or high-voltage circuits?
>
> >Note: Sub-harmonics of the two primary frequencies at which dissociation
> >will occur:
> >43430 Hz 143,762 HZ
> >SUBHARMONIC SUBHABMONIC
> >1st 21715 HZ 1st 71881 HZ
> >2nd 14476.67 HZ 2nd 47920.67 HZ
> >3rd 15517.5 HZ 3rd 35840.1 HZ
> >4th 8686 Hz 4th 28752.4 HZ
>
> >*1500 VOLTS IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR MOLECULAR RINGING TO BEGIN.
>
> <snip>
>
> The experiment provides absolutely no evidence for anything other than
> ordinary electrolysis taking place in the cell.
ABSOLUTE, PURE CACA, Mr. Ward,
and anyone who understands what he wrote,
and flyback circuitry knows this.
This is ANYTHING BUT a low-voltage,
high current output circuit feeding the test cell -
it is, without question,
a flyback circuit,
totally incapable of such output,
and capable of high-voltage at milliamps of current,
which is EXACTLY what this person witnessed
in a totally non-electrolytic separation of water.
Electrolysis uses low voltage and high current, and an electrolyte,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
none of which were present in the cell producing the gases.
Regards,
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Sorry, Mr, CONover - you're the one who claimed it doesn't -
let's hear validation of that claim, which just happens to be false.
Now I'm finally getting the mentality of morons like yourself -
ANYTHING THAT IS CLAIMED HERE HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, BUT NOTHING THAT
DISCLAIMS SOMETHING DOES?
Stan Meyer, did, in fact, under 35 USC 101 demonstrate to the PTO
that his technology works.
Ever read this?
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
"The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
If there is any "mindless drivel" going on here, it its yours, not that
of others here who are trying to discuss hydrogen as a viable energy
source here, which you have already repeatedly and categorically
denied as possible.
What are YOU doing in an NG whose basic premise you disagree with?
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Harry H Conover wrote:
> : >
Have you ever seen ANY of Meyer's devices?
I'm still waiting for a valid explanation of your analysis of the
on-demand" power module, and the Meyer cell, and the homoplolar
generator, and others which you have, without ANY BACKGROUND, KNOWLEDGE,
OR EXPERIENCE IN, made bogusd analyses, just as you have here, of.
You're replete with fraudulent commentary, Railroad Harry.
>
> So, not surprisingly, you have nothing whatsoever to contribute to
> the discussion -- once again.
>
Oh, this is totally relevant to the discussion, since you know NOTHING
about what you are discussing, but have such a resplendent critiquing
apparatus synthesized for yourself of things you know nothing about.
I'm merely qualifying your critiquery with that fact.
>
> : So, is this a scientific approach
> : to the use of the Meyer cell
> : as a possible source of hydrogen energy?
> : HARDLY.
> : It's just more bigoted, ignorant
> : nonsense from an egotistical engineer
> : who knows nothing about the Meyer cell
> : but whatever happens to strike his
> : dim-witted, self-satisfied imagination,
> : and the lousiest of science.
>
> Again, lot of nasty words without any substance.
Plenty of substance, Mr. CON -
you've never EVER EVEN SEEN THE DEVICES YOU ARE CRITIQUING,
NOR HAVE YOU DONE ANY VALID RESEARCH ON THEM.
That is fact which is quite relevant to the topic,
highly substantial, and accurate in the assessment
of the type of "science" you are applying here..
>
> : >
> : > Stan Meyer's scheme consists of pure fraud or absolute
> : > incompetence, or some mixture of both. The only thing
> : > that protects guys like this is the frequent unwillingness of their
> : > unfortunate victims to come forward to press charges, largely
> : > because of a reluctance to admit that they were foolish
> : > enough to invest in such a superficial scam!
> :
> : Prove it, Mr. CON.
> : You're nothing but a fraud.
>
> I suggest that you look up the meaning of "fraud" in your
> dictionary, Wanker Hannon, since you evidently have no clue
> concerning its meaning.
A fraudulent person is, in fact, by definition,
someone posing as an authority
on subjects he knows nothing about,
which you constantly do here,
making observations about things you have never seen,
and representing those observations as the truth -
that is, without question, F R A U D -
plain and simple -
just like your derrogatory commentaries about
George Moonhie's book on
High Voltage and Free energy,
and reports on BROWN's GAS phenomena,
neither of which you have ever even SEEN,
let alone read or witnessd.
That's FRAUD, Harry -
there's no question about it.
>
> : You have NO RESEARCH to substantiate your accusations,
> : NO KNOWLEDGE of the actual workings of the cell itself,
> : which you have already demonstrated
> : by your description of its function.
> : You're nothing bu a badmouthing windbag
> : with no experiential knowledge of the Meyer, or Keely,
> : or Brown, or Patterson, or many other devices
> : you spend all your time d3enegrating,
> : without ONE SHRED of working knowldge or experience
> : about ANY OF THEM.
> : If that isn't fraudulent activity,
> : then someone had better
> : wake up Webster to protect his dictionary,
> : because you're trying
> : to rewrite it again for him.
>
> Again, I suggest you look up the meaning of "fraud."
I did, Railroad Harry, and you're it, without ANY question.
>
> : >
> : > Investment in a car that runs on water? ROFL! Sucker!
> : >
> : > Harry C.
> :
> : Sucker?
> : A sucker is someone
> : who listens to negative hearsay
> : about something from someone who
> : has never even SEEN the thing
> : he says is a fraud,
> : and believes the jerk who is saying it.
>
> Thank you for voicing your profound insight in connection with
> this subject.
>
> Harry C.
OH, you're totally welcome Rairoad Harry.
I'm just trying to help point out a few REAL facts
about your methods, motives, and means.
Maybe you should think before
you call something
you have no working knowledge of
ANYTHING AT ALL,
instead of defaming what you have
no conceptual understanding of,
or the desire to acquire such understanding.
Because when you do say that
something you know nothing real about
is "impossible," a fraud, nonsense, "pseudo-science,"
or whatever derrogatory thing you choose,
without any valid substantiation,
you are acting in a
totally fraudulent, unscientific fashion,
and that is a fact.
OHannon
Zac Barnard
jch...@powerball.net wrote:
> In article <34155F6E...@tinaja.com>,
> Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
> >
> >...
> >
> > The burning with a near invisible flame follows directly from
> hydrogen's
> laughingly
> > pathetic energy density by volume. A liter of gasoline offers 9600
> watt hours.
> A liter
> > of lead acid offers 30 watt hours. A liter of STP hydrogen offers
> an
> abysmally
> > putrid 3.5 watt hours.
>
> By contrast, a liter of sodium hydride (NaH) offers a respectable 4500
>
> watt hours worth of on demand hydrogen from water.
>
> Sodium Hydride powerball technology deserves a closer look.
>
> ...snip
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
I looked over the schematic at the site and have a few comments:
>From:
> http://www.iinet.net.au/~steveb/danforth/dan1.html
>"In the original setup that Stan Meyer showed us, he used 36 volts as
>the basic potential applied to the reaction chamber. He also commented
>that stainless steel ( 410 not 403 ) was the only metal that could be
>used as oxides formed with all others. His original chamber used 18 inch
>long by 0.375 inch diameter (o.d.) rod surrounded by 1 inch diameter
>(i.d.) 16 inch long pipe.
>The reason for the difference in length is for mechanical ease of
>construction. My prototype used 14 inch long rod and 12 inch long pipe
>of similar diameters as the drawing indicates.
>Having a severe lack of parts diversity here in Sri-Lanka, I was only
>able to obtain a 24 volt. 8 amp transformer and built my circuitry
>around that. The final output is 20 volts with Ml reading 10 amps to the
>pulsing circuit which generates a symetricel squarewave ( 50% duty cycle
The 10 amps also flows through the cell, electrolysing the water.
>) to the flyback inductor connected in series with the chamber as the
>schematic shows. The flyback high voltage spike is directed across the
>chamber via c* end d*. The use of a high voltage spike alone, without
>the current being delivered through the liquid, will not cause the
>disassociation to take place.
That's in accordance with known principles of electrolysis. No current,
no gas.
>This I verified using an ignition coil in
>place of the inductor and applied the secondary with halfwave
>rectification and blocking capacitor to prevent burn out to the chamber
>with no results. Apparently the current in the water aligns the
>molecules approprately to allow the high voltege spike to do its work
>which in my opinion is the stimulation of molecular resonance.
Or simply electrolyses it.
>Once
>Stan's unit was made to begin breakdown (which takes 6 to 8 seconds) he
>was able to reduce both current and voltage to miniscule proportions. I
>attribute this to sympathetic oscillation of the aligned molecules,
>requiring very little in the way of additional excitation. A phenomena
>akin to Tesla's super resonance... resulting in Stan discovering that he
>only had to supply three pulses in ten to satisfy the requirement of the
>chamber. I have not yet had the opportunity to duplicate this portion of
>the experiment but, in time I will.
Note the experimenter did not duplicate Meyer's claims. Current was
necessary to produce gas, consistent with ordinary electrolysis.
>Duplication of the device described in these pages, however, will
>produce the phenomena and hopefully launch other enterprising end
>inventive souls on to designing their own refined models. It would be
>nice to have feedback so that we can all collectively work to bring
>about the transition to non-pollution energy.
>P.S.- The electrical circuit is by no means optimised, but represents
>instead the result of parts availability here. Any good technician could
>improve on it quite readily.
>There are two primary frequencies that produce the best results. They
>are 143,762 Hz and 43430 Hz. The former is about 50% more efficient, but
>it seems that just about any frequency between 9 KHz and 143762 KHz
>works quite well). This is because the nature of the wave form (a spike
>) is rich in harmonics and one of them is bound to be close to one of
>the two primary frequencies.
Or that the frequency actually has very little, if any, influence on gas
production compared to the current. The frequencies look suspiciously
like resonances of the coil with itself and the capacitor (L and C# in
the schematic).
>Use of permanent magnets may also increase efficiency.
How and why?
>I'll give you the
>outcome of that attempt in my next letter along with the plans for what
>I hope to be a much improved version.
And where is that report?
>Note: Sub-harmonics of the two primary frequencies at which dissociation
>will occur:
>43430 Hz 143,762 HZ
>SUBHARMONIC SUBHABMONIC
>1st 21715 HZ 1st 71881 HZ
>2nd 14476.67 HZ 2nd 47920.67 HZ
>3rd 15517.5 HZ 3rd 35840.1 HZ
>4th 8686 Hz 4th 28752.4 HZ
>*1500 VOLTS IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR MOLECULAR RINGING TO BEGIN.
<snip>
The experiment provides absolutely no evidence for anything other than
ordinary electrolysis taking place in the cell.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Robert Erck
In article <3421a0fa...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, ce...@dt.navy.mil wrote:
> bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov (Robert Erck) wrote:
>
> .In article <3410BB16...@tinaja.com>, d...@tinaja.com wrote:
> .
> .> In oxygen, water.
> .> In air, water plus nitrous oxide at certain temperatures,
> pressures, and
> .> mixtures.
> .> Thus, burning hydrogen in air usually pollutes.
> .>
> .> The invisible flame is also extremely dangerous in an open burn.
> .>
> .> --
> .> Many thanks,
> .>
> .> Don Lancaster
> .>
> .
> .
> .I don't know why I read this newsgroup...a hydrogen flame is *not*
> .invisible.
>
> Perhaps you read to learn something new...
>
> Pasted from the Air Products MSDS:
>
> Unusual Fire And Expl Hazrds: HYDROGEN CAN BURN W/ALMOST AN INVISIBLE
> FLAME OF LOW THERMAL RADIATION.PEOPLE HAVE UNKNOWINGLY WALKED INTO
> HYDRGOGEEN FLAMES.FLAME PROPAGATES AT RAPID RATE.
The original poster said it was *invisible*. So I took a hydrogen torch
and lit it. The flame is dim, but blue-yellow.
The Air Products warning says ALMOST an invisble flame. So what's the
problem? We all agree it is dim.
In bright sunlight I'd expect that the luminosity of a H2 flame would not
be detectable to the human eye. Only the heat waves the flame produces
would be discernable.
Are we ok with this?
Bob E.
Mark Cervi
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bill Ward wrote:
>>
>> Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I looked over the schematic at the site and have a few comments:
>>
>> >From:
>> > http://www.iinet.net.au/~steveb/danforth/dan1.html
>>
<snip mechanical details>
>>
>> >Having a severe lack of parts diversity here in Sri-Lanka, I was only
>> >able to obtain a 24 volt. 8 amp transformer and built my circuitry
>> >around that. The final output is 20 volts with Ml reading 10 amps to the
>> >pulsing circuit which generates a symetricel squarewave ( 50% duty cycle
>>
>> The 10 amps also flows through the cell, electrolysing the water.
>>
>PURE BULLSHIT, Mr. Ward, and you know it. The 10 amps at 24 volts (240
>watts) is sent to the primary of the high-voltage circuit,
Your comments might carry more credibility had you studied the schematic
first. Please tell all of us just exactly where you find a "primary" of
a HV circuit on the diagram.
>where it is
>converted to high-voltage, very low amperage as described in the next
>section below, at 50% duty cycle, where only HALF of the original
>10amps at 24v input ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (120Watts) is actually used.
He says his meter read 10 A. At 50% duty cycle, that would be 20A peak.
>There is no TV flyback transformer I know of that will hand 10 amps at
>its high-voltage output.
>As an engineer, for you to make such spurious emmissions is beyond
>belief, and shows an open intent to obfuscate and deny actual honest
>results, and you know it.
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>> >) to the flyback inductor connected in series with the chamber as the
>> >schematic shows. The flyback high voltage spike is directed across ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >chamber via c* end d*. The use of a high voltage spike alone, without
>> >the current being delivered through the liquid, will not cause the
>> >disassociation to take place.
>>
>> That's in accordance with known principles of electrolysis. No current,
>> no gas.
>More crap from someone who is supposed to be an engineer.
>The output of a flyback tramnsformer IS and has ALWAYS BEEN high volts
>and milliamps of current. ANYONE who has seen the ouput coil on a
>flyback transformer can clearly see very thin conductors, capable of
>only very small amperages, and anyone who knows the use of flybacks in
>TV's knows that they produce thousands of volts at very low amperage
>levels.
>More lying and bad engineering (let alone science) conduct from you, Mr.
>Ward.
>This circuit is ANYTHING BUT a standard electrolysis circuit, and you
>know it.
At least I looked at it. You obviously haven't. There IS NO flyback
transformer on the schematic - only a series inductor.
<bandwidth snip>
Thank you, Michael, for demonstrating the extent of your knowledge of
electronic circuits and principles. I can assure you my estimate of
your credibility will never be diminished.
Regards
Bill Ward
Robert Erck
In article <5vmm9f$1...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:
> Robert Erck (bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov) wrote:
> : In article <3421a0fa...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, ce...@dt.navy.mil wrote:
> :
> :
> :
> : The original poster said it was *invisible*. So I took a hydrogen torch
> : and lit it. The flame is dim, but blue-yellow.
>
> Was this a hydrogen/oxygen torch or a hydrogen/air torch? My experience
> with hydrogen/oxygen torches is that they are pretty much invisible, even
> in relatively dim interior lighting.
>
> By contrast, a hydrogen/air torch flame is much more visible, being colored
> by the spectral lines of things like elements in the dust carried in along
> with the air. (You can see the same effect with a typical propane torch
> that ingests air.)
>
> Harry C.
This was hydrogen burning in air. It emits noticable thermal radiation.
It is dim.
The addition of oxygen cause the flame to become a much more intense blue
color, very easy to see in normal lab lighting. I suspect that it is not
the dust that is emitting the light, but the ionized atoms/molecules.
air.
John M. Feiereisen
In <5vmnqh$p...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>ANYTHING THAT IS CLAIMED HERE HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, BUT NOTHING THAT
>DISCLAIMS SOMETHING DOES?
In the words of the late Dr. Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence."
Claims to violate known physical laws are extraordinary. Videos,
books, 'testimonials' by people who obviously don't understand the
most basic of scientific principles, etc., aren't only *not*
extraordinary evidence, they're not *evidence* at all.
If the claims can't hold up to critical examination by disinterested,
independent scientists and engineers who thoroughly understand the
scientific principles that are claimed to be violated, they're
worthless. If the person making the extraordinary claim refuses to
let disinterested engineers and scientists test those claims to their
own satisfaction, the extraordinary claim *must* be brushed off as
pseudoscience. If the claimant really had something, he'd be champing
at the bit to demonstrate it to everybody he could.
Please Michael, you've got to expect this sort of critical examination
when you post these outrageous claims to a sci.* newsgroup.
--
John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc(dot)utc(dot)com
Carl Dean
Robert Erck <bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov> wrote in article
<bob_erck-140...@et212pc113.et.anl.gov>...
ROFL !!! (For those out there who don't know what this means, it's
ROLLING ON FLOOR LAUGHING!)
Erck's a poet!
And he didn't even know it!
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>
> In <5vmnqh$p...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
> <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >ANYTHING THAT IS CLAIMED HERE HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, BUT NOTHING THAT
> >DISCLAIMS SOMETHING DOES?
>
> In the words of the late Dr. Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary evidence."
>
> Claims to violate known physical laws are extraordinary. Videos,
> books, 'testimonials' by people who obviously don't understand the
> most basic of scientific principles, etc., aren't only *not*
> extraordinary evidence, they're not *evidence* at all.
>
> If the claims can't hold up to critical examination by disinterested,
> independent scientists and engineers who thoroughly understand the
> scientific principles that are claimed to be violated, they're
> worthless. If the person making the extraordinary claim refuses to
> let disinterested engineers and scientists test those claims to their
> own satisfaction, the extraordinary claim *must* be brushed off as
> pseudoscience. If the claimant really had something, he'd be champing
> at the bit to demonstrate it to everybody he could.
That is pure bullshit. Mr. Feuerhosen.
Does UT make available what its R&D has to the general public before it
comes out with the product?
Give us a BREAK, Jed -
you really presume to think that
the world is going to believe that CRAP?
>
> Please Michael, you've got to expect this sort of critical examination
> when you post these outrageous claims to a sci.* newsgroup.
UH huh.
More bullshit.
Why don't you take your time and energy to discuss the Rodriguez
experiments with Don Lancaster, instead of criticizing what you know
nothing about?
I'm sure ol' Don would LOVE to go into intimate detail about the
intricacies of it with anyone here who had the good sense to
do it.
(To quote John Belushi,)
"But NOOOOOOOOO!"
You'd rather badmouth what you have no concept of instead.
Yuh, you're interested in science, all right,
Mr. Feuerhosen.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Too bad you have to blow it
On facts you know - it
It just goes to show
That you can stoop so low,
And let reality go right by you,
Instead of minding your own store
Before time proves you a whore.
You see, that data on harmonics
just happens to be
recorded, researched fact.
OHannon
Carl Dean
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<5vg6r0$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Harry H Conover wrote:
> >
> > H2OPWRD (h2o...@aol.com) wrote:
> > :
> > : The ash you speak of has the energy by atomic weight of the
proportional
> > : amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen. They are made up and held together
by
> > : components moving how fast? The speed of light? Faster? Gee what
if you
> > : could tap into that? I think Stan Meyer has done so because his
techniques
> > : are NEW, not a hundred years old.
> > :
> >
> > I strongly suggest learning a bit of elementary science, so that in the
> > future you will not be taken in by fraudsters like Meyer and his ilk
> > again.
> >
> > Be sure an let me know when your investment in Meyer and his side-show
> > tricks begins to pay off. Until then, I will place my trust in
knowledge
> > that lights and heats our homes, put a man on the moon and returned
> > him safely to earth, supports our communications including the medium
> > that you are now utilizing, and has been singularly responsible for
every
> > major technological advancement in the past 150 years or so.
> >
> > Harry C.
>
> Please go peddle your enginner's
> egotism and bigotry elsewhere,
> Railroad Harry.
> You are not a scientist.
> You do not think like a true scientist,
> and anyone really interested in
> the science of hydrogen as an energy source,
> particularly in light of the fact that
> you have repeatedly stated here
> that your strong opinion is
> that is is not a valid energy source,
> would seriously wonder why someone
> who does not see it as an energy source
> continues to impose that opinion
> on others here who do,
> and who wish to discuss it.
>
> Go play engineer in the engineer playpen,
> Railroad Harry -
> not in the NG where people
> wish to take a scientist's viewpoint,
> and not an egotistical, ignorant engineer's.
>
> Engineers do not think like scientists -
> they are not required to -
> they are allowed the bigotry of the engineering discipline,
> which has to factor in the unknown
> only when forced to,
> while the scientific discipline
> cannot allow the denial of unknown variables,
> nor the tactless impudence to ever
> wave the flag of "impossible,"
> particularly without having
> the experience of the phenomena
> about which it is making
> such tasteless, characterless, and shameless presumptions.
>
> OHannon
Just another one of Hannon's useless posts. Don't debate the issue, attack
the individual instead. You state the same thing over and over most of
the time. Why not save yourself some trouble and just repost previous
"posts". You might be able to get by with just three. One for stating
"Brown's gas is the best!". One for attacking any individual who might
disagree with you and then another for general ramblings on quantum physics
/ the meaning of life.
Carl
Michael Hannon
Oh, that was P R O F O U N D, Mr. Dean.
Excuse me, I need to get some tissues....
I just can't hold back the tears of gratitude.....
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Bill Ward wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Bill Ward wrote:
> >>
> >> Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> I looked over the schematic at the site and have a few comments:
> >>
> >> >From:
> >> > http://www.iinet.net.au/~steveb/danforth/dan1.html
> >>
> <snip mechanical details>
> >>
> >> >Having a severe lack of parts diversity here in Sri-Lanka, I was only
> >> >able to obtain a 24 volt. 8 amp transformer and built my circuitry
> >> >around that. The final output is 20 volts with Ml reading 10 amps to the
> >> >pulsing circuit which generates a symetricel squarewave ( 50% duty cycle
> >>
> >> The 10 amps also flows through the cell, electrolysing the water.
> >>
>
> >PURE BULLSHIT, Mr. Ward, and you know it. The 10 amps at 24 volts (240
> >watts) is sent to the primary of the high-voltage circuit,
>
> Your comments might carry more credibility had you studied the schematic
> first. Please tell all of us just exactly where you find a "primary" of
> a HV circuit on the diagram.
The "primary" is coil L1.
When it takes the current at low voltage
to build up a magnetic field,
it acts as the "primary."
When that stored magnetic field
built up in L1 is collapsing
from its supply being cut off
in the "off" half of that duty cycle,
it becomes the "secondary,"
with a strong need to dump that same stored energy,
and since the water in the cell has such
high resistance because it has no electrolyte in it,
it must apply that energy as HIGH VOLTAGE
to overcome that resistance,
or it won't be able to dump very much of that energy at all.
That's how coils work, Bill.
You didn't know that?
What do you think the purpose of coil L1 IS?
Do you know what an autotransformer is?
>
> >where it is
> >converted to high-voltage, very low amperage as described in the next
> >section below, at 50% duty cycle, where only HALF of the original
> >10amps at 24v input ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (120Watts) is actually used.
>
> He says his meter read 10 A. At 50% duty cycle, that would be 20A peak.
Really?
Why?
This is a switching circuit, Bill,
with a SQUARE WAVE OUTPUT,
into an inductor.
Ever seen the limitations placed on
light dimmers, where it says
"not for control of motors?"
Why does it say that?
This is an analog meter, probably designed
to measure amperage at 60 hz
being used to monitor current operating at
frequencies actually cubical powers of that frequency.
And even IF the current DID reach 20 amps peak,
it is doing it ONLY long enough to saturate L1,
before the resistance of the water in the cell
cuts that current flow down to milliamps
for the rest of the "on" half of that duty cycle..
NO electrolyte,
high internal resistance in that cell,
and no high current flow.
> >There is no TV flyback transformer I know of that will hand 10 amps at
> >its high-voltage output.
> >As an engineer, for you to make such spurious emmissions is beyond
> >belief, and shows an open intent to obfuscate and deny actual honest
> >results, and you know it.
> > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> >> >) to the flyback inductor connected in series with the chamber as the
> >> >schematic shows. The flyback high voltage spike is directed across ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read that passage above again, Mr. Ward, particularly where it says
"flyback high voltage spike," until it sinks in.
> >> >chamber via c* end d*. The use of a high voltage spike alone, without
> >> >the current being delivered through the liquid, will not cause the
> >> >disassociation to take place.
> >>
> >> That's in accordance with known principles of electrolysis. No current,
> >> no gas.
>
> >More crap from someone who is supposed to be an engineer.
> >The output of a flyback tramnsformer IS and has ALWAYS BEEN high volts
> >and milliamps of current. ANYONE who has seen the ouput coil on a
> >flyback transformer can clearly see very thin conductors, capable of
> >only very small amperages, and anyone who knows the use of flybacks in
> >TV's knows that they produce thousands of volts at very low amperage
> >levels.
> >More lying and bad engineering (let alone science) conduct from you, Mr.
> >Ward.
> >This circuit is ANYTHING BUT a standard electrolysis circuit, and you
> >know it.
>
> At least I looked at it. You obviously haven't. There IS NO flyback
> transformer on the schematic - only a series inductor.
There certainly IS a flyback transformer in this circuit, Mr. Ward.
Maybe not the type you are used to seeing, but it's there.
Why do they call an IGNITION COIL a COIL,
when it's really a transformer?
What IS a transformer, Mr. Ward?
Pray tell, Mr. Ward - why is that inductor L1,
with 240 turns of wire there,
6 layers of 40 turns each,
with not only that cell,
but with C# and D#,
forming a tank circuit?
Why are any of those parts there?
Decoration?
What happens when the "off" half
of the oscillating duty cycle hits them?
Nothing?
Why bother having those parts there at all?
Oh, you're welcome, Mr. Ward.
Just trying to help you understand
some simple circuitry you seem to be
ignoring for "some reason."
You really should at least TRY
to understand what is going on here.
Such as WHY he wrote the line:
"*1500 VOLTS IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR MOLECULAR RINGING TO BEGIN."
and why he keeps insisting that THERE IS A HIGH VOLTAGE SPIKE.
it must ring a bell SOMEHERE in your head, hopefully.
Regards,
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Chris Morriss wrote:
>
> In article <5vmhv1$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
> <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >More crap from someone who is supposed to be an engineer.
> >The output of a flyback tramnsformer IS and has ALWAYS BEEN high volts
> >and milliamps of current. ANYONE who has seen the ouput coil on a
> >flyback transformer can clearly see very thin conductors, capable of
> >only very small amperages, and anyone who knows the use of flybacks in
> >TV's knows that they produce thousands of volts at very low amperage
> >levels.
> >More lying and bad engineering (let alone science) conduct from you, Mr.
> >Ward.
> >This circuit is ANYTHING BUT a standard electrolysis circuit, and you
> >know it.
> >>
> >
> can't let this one pass. As someone who designs SMPSUs for a living I
> can assure you that you can make a flyback SMPSU have a low output
> voltage at high current if you want. Just get the turns ratio right.
It
> may not be the optimum configuration for low voltages but it will work.
Sure you can - just keep the turns low, and the circuit it feeds
low-impedance, and no voltage will be able to be built up. Making ANY
coil inefficient will do just as well.
>
> Don't take the specific case of a TV line o/p transformer to be generic.
>
> I had copies of most of Meyer's patents and have tried many similar
> configurations. None worked!! Also, either the cicuits in his patents
> are deliberately drawn up with errors, or he really is deluding himself
> as well as others.
>
Why is it that I find these statements to be pure BALONEY?
Meyer DEMONSTRATED his devices to the PATENT OFFICE,
and DEMONSTRATED THEM FOR YEARS
TO ANYONE WHO WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK,
and yopu're saying you built them and they didn't?
Horseshit, Chriss, Morrisssss.
> One final point. If there are new discoveries to be made in this area,
> I think that a true engineer is more likely to find them than a true
> scientist. An engineer is less likely to be put off trying someing
> novel, whereas the scientist may say: 'this can't happen so I won't try
> it'.
>
You've got it totally backwards, Chriss
Engineers (look at them here, saying what they do)
Say "it can't happen, so why try it."
REAL scientists, by definition, say
"Despite the fact that it defies
what I know about the laws involved,
it is possible, so I'll try it."
You can OBVIOUSLY SEE THAT
by the engineers here who
refuse to even attempt research
in the areas they ridicule,
because "it's impossible."
> Sadly, I don't think than Meyer's claims bear any analysis.
>
> --
> Chris Morriss
I'm sure you don't, Chris,
but neither does anything you said here,
for obvious reasons.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Chris Morriss (cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> :
> : I had copies of most of Meyer's patents and have tried many similar
> : configurations. None worked!! Also, either the cicuits in his patents
> : are deliberately drawn up with errors, or he really is deluding himself
> : as well as others.
>
> his patent 4826581, Sheet 6 of 7, he depict 110 VAC fed through a
> full-wave bridge rectifier and directly into the primary of what
> he terms a Toroidal Pulsing Core (actually a transformer).
>
> I'd sure like to read a technically literate explanation of how this
> thing is supposed to work, if it does, and why it simply doesn't blow
> the wall breaker as the toroidal ferromagnetic core is driven into
> saturation by the DC being applied to it.
>
> Meyer's patents are simply full of this sort of nonsense. Even the
> typos contained in are classic! (Section 1, Line 35: "Electrically
> charged gas ions of opposite electrical polarity are activated By
> Express Mail No. 26224690 on August 5, 1987...")
>
> :
> : Sadly, I don't think than Meyer's claims bear any analysis.
> :
>
> I agree. His patent work seems at the level of the plans for 'Ray
> Guns' sold in comic books to small children.
>
> Harry C.
This is a joke - right, Mr. Conover?
Or are you really as dumb as you're saying you are here?
I just got done nailing your
egotistical, pompous, self-serving, ignorant, arrogant
prejudicial ass regarding patent law -
are you now shooting for yet more pain?
Because if you are,
HEY,
I'D BE ONLY TOO GLAD TO ACCOMMODATE YOU.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
msi...@tefbbs.com wrote:
>
> I have been an electronic engineer for over fourty years. In my
> experience no two terminal inductive device has EVER been described as
> having both a primary and secondary. But perhaps where you come from
> different terminology is used. Could you give references (text books
> etc.) for your useage?
>
> Simon
Gee, I feel sorry about your ignorance of such things, Simon.
But it happens to be a fact, and I don't need no steenking reference to
back it up. All the secondary of any transformer (transformers, by the
way, as you may recall, are nothing but coils, and autotransformers are
nothing but one coil with multiple taps) is is THE OUTPUT SECTION. Just
pretend it's an autotransformer where the primary has 239.99999 turns,
and the secondary has 240.
Would you call THAT a transformer?
Pretend that there are TWO leads going into one end of L1, but with one
a littel further up the lead.
Does that fit your brain sockets?
As soon as that primary winding on L1 stops getting juice from its
power supply, it turns into the secondary winding. Count on it.
Why do they call an ignition coil a coil -
It has a primary, and secondary,
and you SHOULD call it a transformer,
but nobody does.
A lot of the new ones LOOK like transformers?
How come?
Is a coil used as an inductor that has multiple taps on it
a transformer?
What would you call a standard transistor radio antenna -
is that a coil, or a transformer.
Is a transformer with separate secondary and primary windings,
but with one primary and one secondary lead in common
an autotransformer?
Why do they talk about capacitive reactance in transistors -
they're not capacitors?
Why does a coil have capacitance -
it's an inductor, not a capacitor?
What is electricity?
Which comes first - the magnetic field, or the juice?
Why can you magnetize enough magnetizeable steel bars
from a single "seed" magnet to lift more weight
than that "seed" magnet can?
Is a magnet an inductor?......
Can 2 magnets make a triode?
OHannon
OHannon
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>
> In <341E68...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
> <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>
> >> In <5vmnqh$p...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
> >> <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >ANYTHING THAT IS CLAIMED HERE HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, BUT NOTHING THAT
> >> >DISCLAIMS SOMETHING DOES?
> >>
> >> In the words of the late Dr. Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require
> >> extraordinary evidence."
>
>
> >> If the claimant really had something, he'd be champing
> >> at the bit to demonstrate it to everybody he could.
>
> >That is pure bullshit. Mr. Feuerhosen.
> >Does UT make available what its R&D has to the general public before it
> >comes out with the product?
>
> sell books, videotapes, and 'investment opportunities' based upon
> extraordinary claims that violate known physical laws. We build
> and sell jet engines. And somehow we manage to do it while bound
> by these physical laws.
>
> If I had a real working perpetual motion machine, I'd quit my job,
> sell my house, and use my own money to take it to scientists all
> over the country to have them test it to their own satisfaction
> -- at my expense. Of course, I'd make them sign an Intellectual
> Property Agreement, guaranteeing that I will reap at least some of the
> financial benefits that would surely come. Knowledge of this
> breakthrough technology would spread like wildfire. I'd be the one
> with the most profound impact on the planet in 2000 years. We'd all
> be enjoying the benefits of this free, unlimited souce of energy
> within years. And I'd be raking in the bucks.
>
> But it ain't gonna happen.
Bullshit, Jed.
Dr. T. Henry Moray built just such a device.
Some men went to his home, destroyed all of his equipment
right in front of him,
and told him that if he built it again
they would kill him.
Sparky Sweet built another such device,
and they drove him underground
with threats, discredit, and ridicule,
as they did to Yull Brown, and Nicola Tesla,
who also built such devices, and others.
They spend billions of dollars fighting to the death over oil -
now you mean to tell me that they won't kill someone
over a device that would make oil obsolete?
You are either naive, or a liar,
Mr. Feuerhosen -
either way, you aren't telling the truth about
what your company does behind closed doors,
or other companies,
either because you don't know,
or have signed an agreement,
or have been warned.
>
> >Give us a BREAK, Jed -
> >you really presume to think that
> >the world is going to believe that CRAP?
>
> Yup.
>
> >> Please Michael, you've got to expect this sort of critical examination
> >> when you post these outrageous claims to a sci.* newsgroup.
>
> >UH huh.
> >More bullshit.
>
> Please explain.
>
> >Why don't you take your time and energy to discuss the Rodriguez
> >experiments with Don Lancaster, instead of criticizing what you know
> >nothing about?
>
> OK. I'm skeptical about the Rodriguez research. They make the claim
> that they can store something like twenty times the hydrogen as
> 'current technology'. This is most certainly an extraordinary claim.
> But they're legitimate scientists doing legitimate science. I'm sure
> they're working on generating the extraordinary evidence right now. I
> really hope they don't find any 'gotcha' and they and others are able
> to reproduce the results. Imagine, a hydride fuel cell able to yield
> something like a 5000 mile range without refilling! I hope they
> succeed, because this will be a profound leap in hydrogen technology.
>
> Now, if they're still making the extraordinary claim fifteen years
> from now without any extraordinary evidence, and instead are selling
> books, videotapes, and 'investment opportunities', we'll just have to
> assume they've gone the way of the 'Water Powered Car'.
Don't tell it to me -
tell it to Don Lancaster.
I'm not interested in the Rodriguez experiments.
>
> >Yuh, you're interested in science, all right,
> >Mr. Feuerhosen.
>
> Yup. I 'do' science for a living. I read about pseudoscience for
> entertainment.
>
> And Michael, people might take you a little more seriously if you laid
> off the ad hominem attacks, insults, and name-calling, even if they
> don't believe your particular brand of science.
>
> --
> John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc(dot)utc(dot)com
Fuck you, Jed.
It's just fine when you do it,
and other insulting things though,
isn't it?
Why, you've got this piece of paper
you got directly from God himself,
that says you can insult, ridicule,
defame, and derrogate anyone you like -
isn't that right, Jed?
You're an engineer!
Toot! Toot!
OHannon
John M. Feiereisen
In <341E69...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You see, that data on harmonics
>just happens to be
>recorded, researched fact.
And it's also a researched fact that a 'spike' or Dirac delta
waveform Fourier decomposes into an infinite number of harmonics,
each with an *infinitesimal* portion of the energy in the original
waveform.
I've done a bit of active vibration and noise cancellation in my
time and had to deal with this. If you want to get significant
energy out of the, say, eighth harmonic of some spike or short
duty cycle pulse waveform, you're going to need a pretty darn
huge spike or pulse.
Of course, this is all based on my thoroughly mistaken understanding
of Fourier decomposition and harmonic analysis. I realize the
situation is totally different when using HannonScience (tm). Maybe
Michael would care to fill us in on exactly how full of 'crapola'
I am on this subject.
John M. Feiereisen
In <341E68...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>> In <5vmnqh$p...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
>> <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Give us a BREAK, Jed -
Yup.
>UH huh.
>More bullshit.
Please explain.
>Yuh, you're interested in science, all right,
>Mr. Feuerhosen.
Yup. I 'do' science for a living. I read about pseudoscience for
entertainment.
And Michael, people might take you a little more seriously if you laid
off the ad hominem attacks, insults, and name-calling, even if they
don't believe your particular brand of science.
Chris Morriss
In article <5vmhv1$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>The output of a flyback tramnsformer IS and has ALWAYS BEEN high volts
>and milliamps of current. ANYONE who has seen the ouput coil on a
>flyback transformer can clearly see very thin conductors, capable of
>only very small amperages, and anyone who knows the use of flybacks in
>TV's knows that they produce thousands of volts at very low amperage
>levels.
>More lying and bad engineering (let alone science) conduct from you, Mr.
>Ward.
>This circuit is ANYTHING BUT a standard electrolysis circuit, and you
>know it.
>>
>
can't let this one pass. As someone who designs SMPSUs for a living I
can assure you that you can make a flyback SMPSU have a low output
voltage at high current if you want. Just get the turns ratio right. It
may not be the optimum configuration for low voltages but it will work.
Don't take the specific case of a TV line o/p transformer to be generic.
I had copies of most of Meyer's patents and have tried many similar
configurations. None worked!! Also, either the cicuits in his patents
are deliberately drawn up with errors, or he really is deluding himself
as well as others.
One final point. If there are new discoveries to be made in this area,
I think that a true engineer is more likely to find them than a true
scientist. An engineer is less likely to be put off trying someing
novel, whereas the scientist may say: 'this can't happen so I won't try
it'.
Sadly, I don't think than Meyer's claims bear any analysis.
--
Chris Morriss
Harry H Conover
Chris Morriss (cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: I had copies of most of Meyer's patents and have tried many similar
: configurations. None worked!! Also, either the cicuits in his patents
: are deliberately drawn up with errors, or he really is deluding himself
: as well as others.
Re the Meyer patents -- I have the same impression. For example, in
ligh...@berlen.bdsnet.com
In article <19970915072...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD) wrote:
>
><<MAJOR SNIP>>>>
>
> I have been waiting for Ian Johnson to return to Oxford and get a copy of
> the "Wireless World" article he said he would mail to me. (Do they have the
> "Inquirer" at Oxford?) After that I will try to contact the writer and
> other witnesses for their unedited recitation of the facts. I have little
> doubt that they saw anything different than what I have seen AND they were
> allowed to measure the power input of the cell and found it to be in the
> miliamp range as stated in the article. It also was stated (somewhere?)
> that a breadboard cicuit duplicating Stan's process was built at Oxford.
> Ian Johnson expressed that it would be impossibe for him to make the time
> to find the department?/professor?/students? who accomplished this, but if
> I had their college directory and the $$$$ for the phone calls I bet I
> could find out the details.
> >
<<SNIP>>>>
If you would like for me to mail you copies of the article, JW, just
e-mail me a mailing address. Most of the article is reproduced here:
ftp://colossus2.cvl.bcm.tmc.edu/pub/free_energy/meyer/meyer.txt
When I get the time I will post the paragraphs that were left out at that
URL. The author of the article is Frank Ogden, who at the time was editor
of Electronics and Wireless World. He is now semi-retired and a
consulting editor. The phone there is 081-661-3128 +international codes,
and the fax is 081-652-8936.
Regards,
CL
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Michael Hannon
ligh...@berlen.bdsnet.com wrote:
>
> oha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bullshit, Jed.
> >Dr. T. Henry Moray built just such a device.
> >Some men went to his home, destroyed all of his equipment
> >right in front of him,
> >and told him that if he built it again
> >they would kill him.
>
> recounted to a reporter in 1970's how his father was wounded in a gun
> battle in his laboratory, and his equipment smashed, by one of the
> engineers from the Rural Electrification Agency who were ordered to work
> with him by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
>
> Dr. Moray tried to patent his device, but the requests were denied
> because the item he called the 'Moray valve' was too new a thought for
> the patent examiner. It was actually a germanium transistor, and solid
> states were unknown at the time. The patent examiner reported that he
> could not allow the patent because he could not see how it would work
> since "the cathode had no means of being heated." The "transistor" did
> it, but since transistors were unheard of the patent examiner could not
> conceive of the idea.
This is true - Moray, who never got recognition or a penny for it,
invented the transistor, WAY before it was patented by someone else.
He did, as well, invent, and openly demonstrate, devices which sat there
doing "nothing," producing thousands of watts of useable electricity
from no conventionally understood external power source - just the
ambient space around the device - much like the Sweet Vacuum Triode.
OHannon
>
> >They spend billions of dollars fighting to the death over oil -
> >now you mean to tell me that they won't kill someone
> >over a device that would make oil obsolete?
>
> Of course they would, AND HAVE DONE SO MORE THAN ONCE IN THE PAST.
>
> "Well listen to my story 'bout a man named JED,
> a poor mountaineer barely keep his family feed,
> then one day as he was shoot'en at some food,
> up through the ground come a bubbling crude,
> oil that is, black gold, Texas tea
>
> ya all come back now, hear!
Michael Hannon
ligh...@berlen.bdsnet.com wrote:
>
> oha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bullshit, Jed.
> >Dr. T. Henry Moray built just such a device.
> >Some men went to his home, destroyed all of his equipment
> >right in front of him,
> >and told him that if he built it again
> >they would kill him.
>
> As usual OHannon, you are right as rain. John Moray, Dr. Moray's son,
> recounted to a reporter in 1970's how his father was wounded in a gun
> battle in his laboratory, and his equipment smashed, by one of the
> engineers from the Rural Electrification Agency who were ordered to work
> with him by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
>
> Dr. Moray tried to patent his device, but the requests were denied
> because the item he called the 'Moray valve' was too new a thought for
> the patent examiner. It was actually a germanium transistor, and solid
> states were unknown at the time. The patent examiner reported that he
> could not allow the patent because he could not see how it would work
> since "the cathode had no means of being heated." The "transistor" did
> it, but since transistors were unheard of the patent examiner could not
> conceive of the idea.
>
> >They spend billions of dollars fighting to the death over oil -
> >now you mean to tell me that they won't kill someone
> >over a device that would make oil obsolete?
>
> Of course they would, AND HAVE DONE SO MORE THAN ONCE IN THE PAST.
>
> "Well listen to my story 'bout a man named JED,
> a poor mountaineer barely keep his family feed,
> then one day as he was shoot'en at some food,
> up through the ground come a bubbling crude,
> oil that is, black gold, Texas tea
>
> ya all come back now, hear!
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
In "real life," Mr. Drysdale gets Jed to sign a well-conceived
contract signing any rights to the Clampett oil properties to the
surving partner, a year after which Jed gets mysteriously "whacked" in a
"highway
shooting" by street gang members while on vacation in Florida; Granny
then dies from a "heart attack," falling into the Clampett pool at their
Beverly Hills Mansion, Ellie May marries into one of the wealthiest
"benefactor" families to the LA Zoo, and gets "lost" on a nature trip
with her husband to Zimbabwe, and Jethro dies mysteriously in an alley
off Hollywood Boulevard, dressed as a transvestite prostitute, after the
police got an anonymous call from someone named "Arturo," who happened
to be on vacation from Langley, VA, and was passing by when he saw the
glimmer of Jethro's "We Are The World" membership pin, stuck in his left
eye, dancing off the neon lights along the boulevard.
Arturo couldn't be found for comment.
OHannon
msi...@tefbbs.com
I have been an electronic engineer for over fourty years. In my
experience no two terminal inductive device has EVER been described as
having both a primary and secondary. But perhaps where you come from
different terminology is used. Could you give references (text books
etc.) for your useage?
Simon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------