Comments on the Meyer "Water Fuel Cell" patent
Bill Ward
My curiosity finally got the better of me, so I downloaded the figures
for Meyer's patent (US#4936961) from the IBM womplex site and read
through the patent text posted earlier with as much objectivity as I
could muster.
Although the inventor's explanation for the operation of his invention
does not match accepted theory, that does not in itself make the
invention impossible. He appears to be describing a method of splitting
water into its component gases using high voltage pulses to cause
dielectric breakdown. This does not violate any physical laws I know of.
In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
dissolved gases."
The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
of the above passage. If it does happen, he's discovered a
non-electrolytic method of decomposing water.
I found no claims of "over-unity" operation, either in the body of the
patent or the claims. Many of the proposed mechanisms seemed
far-fetched, (resonating the water molecule, for example), but others
seem to describe accepted theory in non-traditional terms. He does not
say explicitly that the energy represented by the released hydrogen and
oxygen comes from the pulsed power supply, but one could make the case
that it should be "obvious to one skilled in the art". I see no reason
for the patent office to demand a working model if there is no 2nd law
claim.
Please understand, I am not endorsing Stan Meyer, the "water fuel cell",
his business practices, the patent, or anything else. I know water is
not a fuel, more energy goes into breaking chemical bonds than you get
back, and people who take your money and tell you otherwise are conning
you.
I simply want to caution those who would spread enlightenment not to let
a good education get in the way of understanding new concepts. I think
it's important to maintain some credibility by sticking to the facts and
leaving emotion and ridicule behind. Stan Meyer may not have the
foggiest notion why his invention operates (if it does), but that alone
is insufficient reason to dismiss his patent. Some specific theoretical
problem must be found, not just ad hominum arguments against the
inventor and his believers. I didn't find such a problem, but maybe
someone else can and point it out to me.
I believe the central question is: "Is there any theory that prohibits
decomposition of water via high voltage dielectric breakdown?"
Regards,
Bill Ward
Harry H Conover
Bill Ward (bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
: I simply want to caution those who would spread enlightenment not to let
: a good education get in the way of understanding new concepts. I think
: it's important to maintain some credibility by sticking to the facts and
: leaving emotion and ridicule behind. Stan Meyer may not have the
: foggiest notion why his invention operates (if it does), but that alone
: is insufficient reason to dismiss his patent. Some specific theoretical
: problem must be found, not just ad hominum arguments against the
: inventor and his believers. I didn't find such a problem, but maybe
: someone else can and point it out to me.
:
: I believe the central question is: "Is there any theory that prohibits
: decomposition of water via high voltage dielectric breakdown?"
Check Faraday's Law. It's not the voltage that matters, it's the
passage of electrical current.
Harry C.
DaveHatunen
In article <5md7rn$d...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>My curiosity finally got the better of me, so I downloaded the figures
>for Meyer's patent (US#4936961) from the IBM womplex site and read
>through the patent text posted earlier with as much objectivity as I
>could muster.
>
>Although the inventor's explanation for the operation of his invention
>does not match accepted theory, that does not in itself make the
>invention impossible. He appears to be describing a method of splitting
>water into its component gases using high voltage pulses to cause
>dielectric breakdown. This does not violate any physical laws I know of.
>
>In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
>Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
>concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
Engineers are not the best people to ask about whether a process
vilates physical laws. If it were, we would all now have Mr Cold Fusion
running our cars.
>"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>dissolved gases."
"It has been suggested" is scientifically meaningless. How about some
peer-reviewed publications?
>The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
>voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
>dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
>generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
>may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
>of the above passage. If it does happen, he's discovered a
>non-electrolytic method of decomposing water.
There are several non-electrolytic ways to dissociate water.
>I found no claims of "over-unity" operation, either in the body of the
>patent or the claims. Many of the proposed mechanisms seemed
>far-fetched, (resonating the water molecule, for example), but others
>seem to describe accepted theory in non-traditional terms. He does not
>say explicitly that the energy represented by the released hydrogen and
>oxygen comes from the pulsed power supply, but one could make the case
>that it should be "obvious to one skilled in the art". I see no reason
>for the patent office to demand a working model if there is no 2nd law
>claim.
If the oxidation of the hydrogen made produces more energy than was
required to dissociate the water in teh first place, then just such a
claim is being made. If the oxidation does not produce more energy than
originally input, what's the point? Electrolysis is already pretty
efficient.
>Please understand, I am not endorsing Stan Meyer, the "water fuel cell",
>his business practices, the patent, or anything else. I know water is
>not a fuel, more energy goes into breaking chemical bonds than you get
>back, and people who take your money and tell you otherwise are conning
>you.
The what's your point?
>I simply want to caution those who would spread enlightenment not to let
>a good education get in the way of understanding new concepts. I think
The old concept, Conservation of Energy still applies.
>it's important to maintain some credibility by sticking to the facts and
>leaving emotion and ridicule behind. Stan Meyer may not have the
>foggiest notion why his invention operates (if it does), but that alone
>is insufficient reason to dismiss his patent. Some specific theoretical
>problem must be found, not just ad hominum arguments against the
>inventor and his believers. I didn't find such a problem, but maybe
>someone else can and point it out to me.
The court found he was taking money for a process that doesn't work. It
doessn't matte rif he understood it or not.
>I believe the central question is: "Is there any theory that prohibits
>decomposition of water via high voltage dielectric breakdown?"
Who cares?
The point is that Meyer's process was being touted far and wide as
over-unity, even if his patent didn't say so.
--
*********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
* In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
* Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
*********************************************************
Bill Ward
con...@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
>Bill Ward (bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:
>: I simply want to caution those who would spread enlightenment not to let
>: a good education get in the way of understanding new concepts. I think
>: it's important to maintain some credibility by sticking to the facts and
>: leaving emotion and ridicule behind. Stan Meyer may not have the
>: foggiest notion why his invention operates (if it does), but that alone
>: is insufficient reason to dismiss his patent. Some specific theoretical
>: problem must be found, not just ad hominum arguments against the
>: inventor and his believers. I didn't find such a problem, but maybe
>: someone else can and point it out to me.
>:
>: I believe the central question is: "Is there any theory that prohibits
>: decomposition of water via high voltage dielectric breakdown?"
>Check Faraday's Law. It's not the voltage that matters, it's the
>passage of electrical current.
> Harry C.
True enough if it were electrolysis. The patent claims specifically
that it is _not_ electrolysis, but a high-voltage induced breakdown of
water acting as a dielectric. If true, wouldn't energy become the
important parameter, not current? Can dielectric breakdown be ruled out
as a method of decomposing water?
Have you read the patent yet?
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <5md7rn$d...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>.
>>
>>In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
>>Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
>>concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
>Engineers are not the best people to ask about whether a process
>vilates physical laws. If it were, we would all now have Mr Cold Fusion
>running our cars.
That's an example of what I mean by an ad hominum (sp?) argument. Some
engineers are capable of making accurate measurements and observations,
the basis for discovering physical laws. I've used the Handbook and
found it to be pretty accurate in other areas. Have you found
otherwise?
>>"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>>dissolved gases."
>"It has been suggested" is scientifically meaningless. How about some
>peer-reviewed publications?
Fair enough. How about a peer-reviewed publication that says it's
impossible? And which physical laws do you claim are violated by gas
production via dielectric breakdown?
>>The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
>>voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
>>dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
>>generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
>>may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
>>of the above passage. If it does happen, he's discovered a
>>non-electrolytic method of decomposing water.
>There are several non-electrolytic ways to dissociate water.
True enough. Even I know about thermal and radiation induced methods.
So why is this one so unlikely?
>>I found no claims of "over-unity" operation, either in the body of the
>>patent or the claims. Many of the proposed mechanisms seemed
>>far-fetched, (resonating the water molecule, for example), but others
>>seem to describe accepted theory in non-traditional terms. He does not
>>say explicitly that the energy represented by the released hydrogen and
>>oxygen comes from the pulsed power supply, but one could make the case
>>that it should be "obvious to one skilled in the art". I see no reason
>>for the patent office to demand a working model if there is no 2nd law
>>claim.
>If the oxidation of the hydrogen made produces more energy than was
>required to dissociate the water in teh first place, then just such a
>claim is being made.
I found no claims in the patent about efficiency or producing more
power than was consumed. If you did find such claims, I would
appreciate your showing me where.
>If the oxidation does not produce more energy than
>originally input, what's the point? Electrolysis is already pretty
>efficient.
The point is the patent itself may not be as totally ridiculous as had
been inferred. If water can in fact be dissociated in the way the
patent claims, the patent is not bogus.
>>Please understand, I am not endorsing Stan Meyer, the "water fuel cell",
>>his business practices, the patent, or anything else. I know water is
>>not a fuel, more energy goes into breaking chemical bonds than you get
>>back, and people who take your money and tell you otherwise are conning
>>you.
>The what's your point?
My point is that we need to be accurate in our criticism. After reading
prior posts on the subject, I dug into the patent expecting to see clear
violations of the second law. Instead, I found an unusual, but
reasonably plausible description of a non-electrolytic method of
dissociating water. The earlier posts apparently exaggerated the claims
the patent actually makes, which does not boost credibility in my book.
>>I simply want to caution those who would spread enlightenment not to let
>>a good education get in the way of understanding new concepts. I think
>The old concept, Conservation of Energy still applies.
I thoroughly agree, but I'm having trouble finding exactly where in the
patent violation of the concept of conservation of energy is even
implied. Can you show me?
>>it's important to maintain some credibility by sticking to the facts and
>>leaving emotion and ridicule behind. Stan Meyer may not have the
>>foggiest notion why his invention operates (if it does), but that alone
>>is insufficient reason to dismiss his patent. Some specific theoretical
>>problem must be found, not just ad hominum arguments against the
>>inventor and his believers. I didn't find such a problem, but maybe
>>someone else can and point it out to me.
>The court found he was taking money for a process that doesn't work. It
>doessn't matte rif he understood it or not.
I'm only considering the technical aspects of the patent per se - not
whether the inventor is a scam artist. He may be making outlandish
claims and misrepresenting the patent, but that's a separate issue the
courts can decide (have decided?).
>>I believe the central question is: "Is there any theory that prohibits
>>decomposition of water via high voltage dielectric breakdown?"
>Who cares?
Well, this is the sci.energy NG. Aren't scientists supposed to be
curious? If not, I stand corrected, and understand the problem better
than I really wanted to.
>The point is that Meyer's process was being touted far and wide as
>over-unity, even if his patent didn't say so.
You're right, this is the key. I don't think the patent makes those
claims, and implying that it does to further the point of discrediting
Meyer is counter-productive, IMHO.
No matter how much we dislike what he's doing, it's a cheap shot, it's
not fair, and it hurts the credibility of all of us that are trying to
help true believers understand why there ain't no such thing as a free
lunch.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Steve Spence
Well Bill, I think you have made the most rational explanation/discussion
of this topic yet. Just the facts, no flames, and held youself back when
silly comments were made on your ideas. keep it up! I look forward to
reading your posts.
--
Steve Spence
NorthEast Region Systems Engineer - Sequel Technology
ssp...@sequeltech.com
http://www.sequeltech.com
Bill Ward wrote in article <5me191$m...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>...
DaveHatunen
In article <5me191$m...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>
>>In article <5md7rn$d...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
><snip>.
>>>
>>>In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
>>>Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
>>>concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
>
>>Engineers are not the best people to ask about whether a process
>>vilates physical laws. If it were, we would all now have Mr Cold Fusion
>>running our cars.
>
>That's an example of what I mean by an ad hominum (sp?) argument. Some
>engineers are capable of making accurate measurements and observations,
>the basis for discovering physical laws. I've used the Handbook and
>found it to be pretty accurate in other areas. Have you found
>otherwise?
Some most probably are. Is Mr Fink? Did he do the experiment? Did he
publish any papers about it?
>>>"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>>>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>>>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>>>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>>>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>>>dissolved gases."
>
>>"It has been suggested" is scientifically meaningless. How about some
>>peer-reviewed publications?
>
>Fair enough. How about a peer-reviewed publication that says it's
>impossible? And which physical laws do you claim are violated by gas
>production via dielectric breakdown?
You've got science backward now. It is the job of the promulgator of a
new theory to first show that he has sufficient data, in a
peer-reviewed publication, that his theory is correct. THEN, and only
then, do others normally perform the same experiment to see if they get
the same results.
In your haste to contradict me, you apparently failed to notice that I
did not say gas production by dielectric breakdown violated physical
law.
>>>The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
>>>voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
>>>dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
>>>generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
>>>may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
>>>of the above passage. If it does happen, he's discovered a
>>>non-electrolytic method of decomposing water.
>
>>There are several non-electrolytic ways to dissociate water.
>
>True enough. Even I know about thermal and radiation induced methods.
>So why is this one so unlikely?
You might also notice that not only did I not say this was unlikely, I
never said anything about the process, per se, at all.
>>>I found no claims of "over-unity" operation, either in the body of the
>>>patent or the claims. Many of the proposed mechanisms seemed
>>>far-fetched, (resonating the water molecule, for example), but others
>>>seem to describe accepted theory in non-traditional terms. He does not
>>>say explicitly that the energy represented by the released hydrogen and
>>>oxygen comes from the pulsed power supply, but one could make the case
>>>that it should be "obvious to one skilled in the art". I see no reason
>>>for the patent office to demand a working model if there is no 2nd law
>>>claim.
>
>>If the oxidation of the hydrogen made produces more energy than was
>>required to dissociate the water in teh first place, then just such a
>>claim is being made.
>
> I found no claims in the patent about efficiency or producing more
>power than was consumed. If you did find such claims, I would
>appreciate your showing me where.
Unfortuantely, DejaNews only goes back a few years, but if you could
search far enough back in Usenet you would find many such claims for
Meyer. They seem to come in cycles of about three years.
I have looked at some patents of a similar nature, and it seems to be a
pattern for the inventor to never say -- in the patent -- that some
sort of over unity is involved, thereby triggering the "no perpetuum
mobile" button at the patent office. Some, by careful reading, do,
implicitly say this, but detecting this may be beyond the capabilites
of the typical patent examiner, Albert Einstein having quti the job
some ninety years ago, and few of similar calibre having succeedeed
him.
>>If the oxidation does not produce more energy than
>>originally input, what's the point? Electrolysis is already pretty
>>efficient.
>
>The point is the patent itself may not be as totally ridiculous as had
>been inferred. If water can in fact be dissociated in the way the
>patent claims, the patent is not bogus.
Maybe. Maybe not. But even if not bogus, what's the point?
>>>Please understand, I am not endorsing Stan Meyer, the "water fuel cell",
>>>his business practices, the patent, or anything else. I know water is
>>>not a fuel, more energy goes into breaking chemical bonds than you get
>>>back, and people who take your money and tell you otherwise are conning
>>>you.
>
>>The what's your point?
>
>My point is that we need to be accurate in our criticism. After reading
>prior posts on the subject, I dug into the patent expecting to see clear
>violations of the second law. Instead, I found an unusual, but
>reasonably plausible description of a non-electrolytic method of
>dissociating water. The earlier posts apparently exaggerated the claims
>the patent actually makes, which does not boost credibility in my book.
Again. allow me to emphasize: I SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE
PROCESS. Not once. All I said was that proper evalutiaon would require
proper scientific appraisal. Your assumption that maybe it works is
meaningless. have you performed the experiments?
>>>I simply want to caution those who would spread enlightenment not to let
>>>a good education get in the way of understanding new concepts. I think
>
>>The old concept, Conservation of Energy still applies.
>
>I thoroughly agree, but I'm having trouble finding exactly where in the
>patent violation of the concept of conservation of energy is even
>implied. Can you show me?
Ahem. I DIDN'T SAY IT DID! Are we clear on that?
>>>it's important to maintain some credibility by sticking to the facts and
>>>leaving emotion and ridicule behind. Stan Meyer may not have the
>>>foggiest notion why his invention operates (if it does), but that alone
>>>is insufficient reason to dismiss his patent. Some specific theoretical
>>>problem must be found, not just ad hominum arguments against the
>>>inventor and his believers. I didn't find such a problem, but maybe
>>>someone else can and point it out to me.
>
>>The court found he was taking money for a process that doesn't work. It
>>doessn't matte rif he understood it or not.
>
>I'm only considering the technical aspects of the patent per se - not
>whether the inventor is a scam artist. He may be making outlandish
>claims and misrepresenting the patent, but that's a separate issue the
>courts can decide (have decided?).
>
>>>I believe the central question is: "Is there any theory that prohibits
>>>decomposition of water via high voltage dielectric breakdown?"
>
>>Who cares?
>
>Well, this is the sci.energy NG. Aren't scientists supposed to be
>curious? If not, I stand corrected, and understand the problem better
>than I really wanted to.
So. Let Meyer publish a paper so that scientist have something to
analyze.
>>The point is that Meyer's process was being touted far and wide as
>>over-unity, even if his patent didn't say so.
>
>You're right, this is the key. I don't think the patent makes those
>claims, and implying that it does to further the point of discrediting
>Meyer is counter-productive, IMHO.
>
>No matter how much we dislike what he's doing, it's a cheap shot, it's
>not fair, and it hurts the credibility of all of us that are trying to
>help true believers understand why there ain't no such thing as a free
>lunch.
You really didn't read what I said, did you? Instead you invented a few
things you would have liked me to say so you would have something to
jump on.
DaveHatunen
In article <5mefov$e...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>,
Steve Spence <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Well Bill, I think you have made the most rational explanation/discussion
>of this topic yet. Just the facts, no flames, and held youself back when
>silly comments were made on your ideas. keep it up! I look forward to
>reading your posts.
HIS ideas? Which were his ideas? I thought it was Meyer's ideas that
needed defending.
Michael Hannon
Sorry for the intrusion - it's not to argue a point, but only to state
that it is my firm belief as well that there is no such think as a free
lunch, per se, as I have already stated previously, but that the
possibility that if something along the lines of Mills's theory, Raleigh
(Lamb)waves, or something else, which has yet to be accounted for, is
involved, then so be it. HOWEVER, it will, one way or another, have its
energy price, and my view is that no matter how "new" the theory which
substantiates certain anomolies is, the energy will come from somewhere,
and cause a deficit in the "place" from which it comes, and some
adjusted form of thermodynamics as it is known now will still stand,
albeit modified to embrace whatever is taking place. What is conceived
as the limits of the scope of thermodynamics will most probably change,
however, and in the process, it will "look" like a "free lunch" to
consumers as much or more than heat pumps do now, especially when
sympathetic vibratory physics and resonance engineering are applied.
Please excuse the intrusion.
OHannon
Carl Dean
> What is conceived
> as the limits of the scope of thermodynamics will most probably change,
> however, and in the process, it will "look" like a "free lunch" to
> consumers as much or more than heat pumps do now
A heat pump is about as much of a "free lunch" as an air conditioner is and
they don't work very efficiently at all when it starts getting really cold
out. I bet you don't see many (or even any) heat pumps being used in ski
resort country. This is basic thermodynamics again.
Carl
Richard Bell
In article <5mdjk1$c...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>con...@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
>
>>Bill Ward (bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>:
>>: a good education get in the way of understanding new concepts. I think
>>: leaving emotion and ridicule behind. Stan Meyer may not have the
>>: foggiest notion why his invention operates (if it does), but that alone
>>: is insufficient reason to dismiss his patent. Some specific theoretical
>>: problem must be found, not just ad hominum arguments against the
>>: inventor and his believers. I didn't find such a problem, but maybe
>>: someone else can and point it out to me.
>>: I believe the central question is: "Is there any theory that prohibits
>>: decomposition of water via high voltage dielectric breakdown?"
>
>>passage of electrical current.
>
>> Harry C.
>
>True enough if it were electrolysis. The patent claims specifically
>that it is _not_ electrolysis, but a high-voltage induced breakdown of
>water acting as a dielectric. If true, wouldn't energy become the
>important parameter, not current? Can dielectric breakdown be ruled out
>as a method of decomposing water?
>
>Have you read the patent yet?
>
>Regards,
>Bill Ward
If a dielectric breaks down, there is a current, thats how breakdown is
detected. Dissociating water in an electrolyte is accomplished by having
all of the ions migrate to their respective electrodes. The current is
needed to de-ionize the atoms, so that they form molecules and precipitate
out of the solution. The current required by electrolysis does not do any
dissociation of the water, that is accomplished chemically, which explains
why alkaline are always topped up with energy when you buy them, even though
they were never hooked up to a generator and charged.
Any process that requires the electric field to dissociate the water as well
as everything else will require more energy than a chemically dissociated
system.
Michael Hannon
Carl Dean wrote:
>
> > What is conceived
> > as the limits of the scope of thermodynamics will most probably change,
> > however, and in the process, it will "look" like a "free lunch" to
>
> A heat pump is about as much of a "free lunch" as an air conditioner is and
> they don't work very efficiently at all when it starts getting really cold
> out. I bet you don't see many (or even any) heat pumps being used in ski
> resort country. This is basic thermodynamics again.
>
> Carl
Really? Just "basic thermodynamics?" How nice.
Ever been to the Lake Tahoe area (one of the ski and snow capitals of
the world), Carl? I live a half hour drive away from the lake itself.
The buildings in the place and the surrounding area are loaded with heat
pumps - compared to conventional electric heaters, they are definitely
looked at as a "free lunch." When you consider that they can both heat
using less power than other conventional methods and air condition,
they're a "free dinner." No, you might not find them in arctic areas,
because who needs A/C in the arctic?
Congratulations on your ability to say "This is basic thermodynamics
again," which means nothing, except that you want to impress everyone
here. Monkey-see-monkey-do. Very nice, Mr. Dean.
Try this:
"It is a well established scientific fact that ordinary heat pumps take
one unit of energy to run them and put out three to four or more times
that same amount of energy in the form of heat."
Pond and Baumgartner,
"Nicola Tesla's Earthquake Machine"
Their references:
"Domestic Heat Pumps," by John Summer, Prism Press, 1976 page 1
"Modern Refrigeration and Air Conditioning" by Althouse, Turnquist, and
Bracciano, the Goodhert-Wilcox Company, 1988, page 827
Bill Ward
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <5me191$m...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5md7rn$d...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>><snip>.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
>>>>Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
>>>>concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
>>
>>>Engineers are not the best people to ask about whether a process
>>>vilates physical laws. If it were, we would all now have Mr Cold Fusion
>>>running our cars.
>>
>>That's an example of what I mean by an ad hominum (sp?) argument. Some
>>engineers are capable of making accurate measurements and observations,
>>the basis for discovering physical laws. I've used the Handbook and
>>found it to be pretty accurate in other areas. Have you found
>>otherwise?
>Some most probably are. Is Mr Fink? Did he do the experiment? Did he
>publish any papers about it?
Mr. Fink is the editor of the Electronic Engineers Handbook, a reference
work similar to the CRC Handbook of Chem & Phys. The "Property of
Materials" chapter was written by Ilan A Blech, Assoc. Prof,
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. Contributors to the
book fill 4 pages of fine print, with other bibliographies scattered
throughout the book by subject. I don't know if any papers were
published about the observations described.
>>>>"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>>>>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>>>>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>>>>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>>>>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>>>>dissolved gases."
>>
>>>"It has been suggested" is scientifically meaningless. How about some
>>>peer-reviewed publications?
>>
>>Fair enough. How about a peer-reviewed publication that says it's
>>impossible? And which physical laws do you claim are violated by gas
>>production via dielectric breakdown?
>You've got science backward now. It is the job of the promulgator of a
>new theory to first show that he has sufficient data, in a
>peer-reviewed publication, that his theory is correct. THEN, and only
>then, do others normally perform the same experiment to see if they get
>the same results.
I've noticed that. It's puzzling to me that many people are not curious
enough to occasionally try to repeat _plausible_ (ie not obviously
impossible) results on their own before rejecting them out of hand.
>In your haste to contradict me, you apparently failed to notice that I
>did not say gas production by dielectric breakdown violated physical
>law.
You are right, you did not. I apologize. I overreacted to your gentle
jibe about engineers and cold fusion.
>>>>The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
>>>>voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
>>>>dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
>>>>generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
>>>>may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
>>>>of the above passage. If it does happen, he's discovered a
>>>>non-electrolytic method of decomposing water.
>>
>>>There are several non-electrolytic ways to dissociate water.
>>
>>True enough. Even I know about thermal and radiation induced methods.
>>So why is this one so unlikely?
>You might also notice that not only did I not say this was unlikely, I
>never said anything about the process, per se, at all.
(apology++)
>>>>I found no claims of "over-unity" operation, either in the body of the
>>>>patent or the claims. Many of the proposed mechanisms seemed
>>>>far-fetched, (resonating the water molecule, for example), but others
>>>>seem to describe accepted theory in non-traditional terms. He does not
>>>>say explicitly that the energy represented by the released hydrogen and
>>>>oxygen comes from the pulsed power supply, but one could make the case
>>>>that it should be "obvious to one skilled in the art". I see no reason
>>>>for the patent office to demand a working model if there is no 2nd law
>>>>claim.
>>
>>>If the oxidation of the hydrogen made produces more energy than was
>>>required to dissociate the water in teh first place, then just such a
>>>claim is being made.
>>
>> I found no claims in the patent about efficiency or producing more
>>power than was consumed. If you did find such claims, I would
>>appreciate your showing me where.
>Unfortuantely, DejaNews only goes back a few years, but if you could
>search far enough back in Usenet you would find many such claims for
>Meyer. They seem to come in cycles of about three years.
I meant to imply "such claims _in the patent_", since that is all I was
commenting on, but you are technically correct.
As I said, I was referring to posts prior to my reading the patent. I'm
not sure where you got the idea I was referring to your opinion of the
validity of the process.
But on the rest, I think we actually agree here. I'm not assuming the
process is valid, I'm simply saying I see no physical laws it violates.
If it can be shown to do so, it's proven false, as far as I'm concerned.
Otherwise, until it's properly tested, it's simply unproven either way.
I probably won't take the time to do the experiments myself, but then I
didn't think I'd read the patent, either. :->
>>>>I simply want to caution those who would spread enlightenment not to let
>>>>a good education get in the way of understanding new concepts. I think
>>
>>>The old concept, Conservation of Energy still applies.
>>
>>I thoroughly agree, but I'm having trouble finding exactly where in the
>>patent violation of the concept of conservation of energy is even
>>implied. Can you show me?
>Ahem. I DIDN'T SAY IT DID! Are we clear on that?
OK (apology++)
>>>>it's important to maintain some credibility by sticking to the facts and
>>>>leaving emotion and ridicule behind. Stan Meyer may not have the
>>>>foggiest notion why his invention operates (if it does), but that alone
>>>>is insufficient reason to dismiss his patent. Some specific theoretical
>>>>problem must be found, not just ad hominum arguments against the
>>>>inventor and his believers. I didn't find such a problem, but maybe
>>>>someone else can and point it out to me.
>>
>>>The court found he was taking money for a process that doesn't work. It
>>>doessn't matte rif he understood it or not.
>>
>>I'm only considering the technical aspects of the patent per se - not
>>whether the inventor is a scam artist. He may be making outlandish
>>claims and misrepresenting the patent, but that's a separate issue the
>>courts can decide (have decided?).
>>
>>>>I believe the central question is: "Is there any theory that prohibits
>>>>decomposition of water via high voltage dielectric breakdown?"
>>
>>>Who cares?
>>
>>Well, this is the sci.energy NG. Aren't scientists supposed to be
>>curious? If not, I stand corrected, and understand the problem better
>>than I really wanted to.
>So. Let Meyer publish a paper so that scientist have something to
>analyze.
I don't think he has the background to publish anything the
establishment would recognize. The patent was clearly a stretch for
him. I just hope someone reasonably qualified is curious enough to
bootleg a test or two and check it out.
>>>The point is that Meyer's process was being touted far and wide as
>>>over-unity, even if his patent didn't say so.
>>
>>You're right, this is the key. I don't think the patent makes those
>>claims, and implying that it does to further the point of discrediting
>>Meyer is counter-productive, IMHO.
>>
>>No matter how much we dislike what he's doing, it's a cheap shot, it's
>>not fair, and it hurts the credibility of all of us that are trying to
>>help true believers understand why there ain't no such thing as a free
>>lunch.
>You really didn't read what I said, did you? Instead you invented a few
>things you would have liked me to say so you would have something to
>jump on.
That wasn't aimed at you, Dave. AFIK, you weren't involved in the
posts dismissing the patent. I was grousing about what I perceive to be
a well justified criticism of Meyer's business practices spilling over
into an unjustified attack on the patent itself. If you don't watch
sci.energy.hydrogen, you may have missed it.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
"Steve Spence" <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Well Bill, I think you have made the most rational explanation/discussion
>of this topic yet. Just the facts, no flames, and held youself back when
>silly comments were made on your ideas. keep it up! I look forward to
>reading your posts.
Thanks for the kind words, Steve. The trouble with the middle of the
road is you get run over by both sides. :->
Regards,
Bill Ward
H2OPWRD
In article <5md7rn$d...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) writes:
>My curiosity finally got the better of me, so I downloaded the figures
>for Meyer's patent (US#4936961) from the IBM womplex site and read
>through the patent text posted earlier with as much objectivity as I
>could muster.
>
>
Bill, I applaud your effort to "muster" the ojectivity to investigate.
I also appreciate your efforts at moderating the discussion here.
I am sorry that your slightest objective move has also encouraged
the wrath of the "Kings" of this NG. I hope you are ready to be
branded as some type of trader for trying to satisfy your curiosity
in an objective manner. May the non-consumed physical "Force"
of voltage be with you.
Regards,
JW
Bill Ward
rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) wrote:
Thanks for your comments. Mine follow:
>If a dielectric breaks down, there is a current, thats how breakdown is
>detected.
Good point. The dissociation energy W has to come from the HV supply, so
a minimum of I=W/V real amps would need to flow.
> Dissociating water in an electrolyte is accomplished by having
>all of the ions migrate to their respective electrodes.
True for electrolysis, but not necessarily for AC driven dielectric
breakdown, if the gas is somehow evolved between the electrodes by the
electric field.
> The current is
>needed to de-ionize the atoms, so that they form molecules and precipitate
>out of the solution.
Another good point. How Is the electric field able to dissociate the
water into H2 and O2 without going through the monatomic stage and
immediately recombining? That's probably the best counter argument I've
seen so far. I don't immediately see any answer other than invoking
the applied DC bias and some inspired arm waving. Anybody else? step
right up. :->
>The current required by electrolysis does not do any
>dissociation of the water, that is accomplished chemically,
Actually, I think the energy is coming from the power supply, so the
current _has_ to be dissociating the water during electrolysis, doesn't
it? Maybe I'm not exactly understanding you here. It depends on what
you mean by "chemically".
>which explains
>why alkaline are always topped up with energy when you buy them, even though
>they were never hooked up to a generator and charged.
I'm not sure what you mean here relative to electrolysis.
>Any process that requires the electric field to dissociate the water as well
>as everything else will require more energy than a chemically dissociated
>system.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the term "chemically dissociated"
here, but it's my hunch also that this method will not be terribly
efficient compared to electrolysis.
I appreciate your comments. Your post is exactly what I was hoping for
- a discussion of some actual technical issues in the patent.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD) wrote:
<snip>
>Bill, I applaud your effort to "muster" the ojectivity to investigate.
>I also appreciate your efforts at moderating the discussion here.
>I am sorry that your slightest objective move has also encouraged
>the wrath of the "Kings" of this NG. I hope you are ready to be
>branded as some type of trader for trying to satisfy your curiosity
>in an objective manner. May the non-consumed physical "Force"
>of voltage be with you.
>Regards,
>JW
Thanks, JW, for the kind words, but I don't want to sail under false
colors here. I'm defending the patent only against what I see as kind
of a cheap shot. I'm not claiming it works and I'm not defending Stan
Meyer and his water powered car scheme in any way. I think the "Kings"
of the NG (as you put it) generally have their facts right, but I would
rather see them try to teach you to understand the concepts involved
rather than just trade insults.
I may disagree with you, but I realize you sincerely believe in Stan
Meyer and his incredible inventions, and I respect your right to do so.
In a way, those who are vigorously attacking your beliefs are probably
kinder than I am, because they are equally sincerely trying to save you
from the consequences of those beliefs whether you like it or not.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
petek...@aol.com (PETEKWANDO) wrote:
> As a layman, I cannot offer much to the scientific debate here. I
>must say, however, as a layman, that Mr. Ward has shown a rare and
>remarkable quality: objectivity. Too often, the world of science appears
>to be driven not by curiousity, but by doctrine; too many seek only
>approval, instead of the truth. As someone who has watched more than a few
>talented graduate students leave their programs in disgust, I can tell you
>that this type of behavior has turned away some fantastic minds. I wish
>there were more voices like Mr. Ward's.
> Whether Meyer's invention is real or not, I couldn't say - but we
>should all RESERVE JUDGEMENT until the matter can be heard, and look at it
>with open eyes.
It's probably terribly gauche to reply to such a complimentary post, but
I appreciate your comments very much. You seem to understand exactly
what I was getting at, and I only wish I had your way with words. Your
point about losing good people is particularly on target. Instead of
celebrating the joy of discovery, we seem to be moving toward the
practice of science by intimidation, turning off many of the talented,
creative people we need so badly.
Regards,
Bill Ward
>
PETEKWANDO
DaveHatunen
In article <19970528053...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
That would be very nice. All we need is a definitive scientific report
on the phenomenon, with appropriate data to analyze and discuss.
Patents really don't have enough info to serve as the jump-off point
for a dispassionate scientific debate.
It would also be interesting to know just how Meyer's patent, which
supposedly makes no claims about over-unity, came to be promoted far
and wide -- especially in Usenet -- as over-unity (in the sense that
more energy could be recovered from the combustion of the hydrogen than
was used to separate it in the first place). My understanding is that
Meyer himself encouraged this, and that is what he got sued for. Let's
face it, a slighty more efficient way to electrolyse water is not the
sort of process that is going to attract investors, and it was the
investors he apparently defrauded.
DaveHatunen
In article <5mgj32$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
[...]
>>Some most probably are. Is Mr Fink? Did he do the experiment? Did he
>>publish any papers about it?
>
>Mr. Fink is the editor of the Electronic Engineers Handbook, a reference
>work similar to the CRC Handbook of Chem & Phys. The "Property of
>Materials" chapter was written by Ilan A Blech, Assoc. Prof,
>Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. Contributors to the
>book fill 4 pages of fine print, with other bibliographies scattered
>throughout the book by subject. I don't know if any papers were
>published about the observations described.
I understand the nature fo such handbooks. God knows I had enough of
them in the past. But that does not answer the question: where are the
citations for the publications that report the data for this
water-breakdown effect you surmise to exist?
[...]
>>You've got science backward now. It is the job of the promulgator of a
>>new theory to first show that he has sufficient data, in a
>>peer-reviewed publication, that his theory is correct. THEN, and only
>>then, do others normally perform the same experiment to see if they get
>>the same results.
>
>I've noticed that. It's puzzling to me that many people are not curious
>enough to occasionally try to repeat _plausible_ (ie not obviously
>impossible) results on their own before rejecting them out of hand.
They cannnot repeat the experiment until it is adequately reported.
Where is the deteiled report of the experiment they are to repeat?
[...]
>>So. Let Meyer publish a paper so that scientist have something to
>>analyze.
>
>I don't think he has the background to publish anything the
>establishment would recognize. The patent was clearly a stretch for
>him. I just hope someone reasonably qualified is curious enough to
>bootleg a test or two and check it out.
Setting up such an experiment is not cheap, in time nor money. It would
be a little much to expect someone somewhere to do this. Still, Dr
Puthoff did do just such a test of the over-unity amplifier and found
that it did not work. But Puthoff is a bit fringey himself, and would
have liked to fidn that it did work, I expect.
[...]
Bill Ward
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <5mgj32$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>[...]
>>>Some most probably are. Is Mr Fink? Did he do the experiment? Did he
>>>publish any papers about it?
>>
>>Mr. Fink is the editor of the Electronic Engineers Handbook, a reference
>>work similar to the CRC Handbook of Chem & Phys. The "Property of
>>Materials" chapter was written by Ilan A Blech, Assoc. Prof,
>>Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. Contributors to the
>>book fill 4 pages of fine print, with other bibliographies scattered
>>throughout the book by subject. I don't know if any papers were
>>published about the observations described.
>I understand the nature fo such handbooks. God knows I had enough of
>them in the past. But that does not answer the question: where are the
>citations for the publications that report the data for this
>water-breakdown effect you surmise to exist?
Thanks for snipping the post back - it was getting unwieldy. But I'm
going to go back and quote what I said so you can show me where I
"surmise" anything.
<begin BW quote >
In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
dissolved gases."
The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
of the above passage.
<end BW quote>
I intended the words "provocative passage" to indicate conjecture or
speculation. The words "have a hard time ruling out" and "may or may
not happen" were also intended to indicate my uncertainty as to the
existance of the water-breakdown process. If there is some way I could
have made that clearer to you, please let me know how and I'll try to
improve my writing.
As I said, I do not know where or if there are published papers on the
dielectric breakdown subject. Feel free to look around . :->
>[...]
>>>You've got science backward now. It is the job of the promulgator of a
>>>new theory to first show that he has sufficient data, in a
>>>peer-reviewed publication, that his theory is correct. THEN, and only
>>>then, do others normally perform the same experiment to see if they get
>>>the same results.
>>
>>I've noticed that. It's puzzling to me that many people are not curious
>>enough to occasionally try to repeat _plausible_ (ie not obviously
>>impossible) results on their own before rejecting them out of hand.
>They cannnot repeat the experiment until it is adequately reported.
I said "try to repeat "plausible (...) _results_", (meaning dissociation
via dielectric breakdown), not necessarily an exact duplication of some
previously reported experiment.
>Where is the deteiled report of the experiment they are to repeat?
If they are the least bit creative, I think they could manage with the
patent description. If they aren't creative, why even bother?
>[...]
>>>So. Let Meyer publish a paper so that scientist have something to
>>>analyze.
>>
>>I don't think he has the background to publish anything the
>>establishment would recognize. The patent was clearly a stretch for
>>him. I just hope someone reasonably qualified is curious enough to
>>bootleg a test or two and check it out.
>Setting up such an experiment is not cheap, in time nor money. It would
>be a little much to expect someone somewhere to do this.
I guess we have different expectations of people. The experiment looks
to me like it would make a good science project for a group of
reasonably proficient high school students (hint, hint). Whether the
phenomenon is real or not is immaterial - the experience of finding out
for yourself is what makes science so rewarding.
>Still, Dr
>Puthoff did do just such a test of the over-unity amplifier and found
>that it did not work. But Puthoff is a bit fringey himself, and would
>have liked to fidn that it did work, I expect.
Hooray for objectivity and the courage to try things that might not
work.
Thanks for your comments, Dave.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Carl Dean
> Really? Just "basic thermodynamics?" How nice.
>
> Ever been to the Lake Tahoe area (one of the ski and snow capitals of
> the world), Carl? I live a half hour drive away from the lake itself.
> The buildings in the place and the surrounding area are loaded with heat
> pumps - compared to conventional electric heaters, they are definitely
> looked at as a "free lunch."
As compared to what? Most electric heat pumps come with backup
conventional electric heating elements that come on when it gets really
cold.
So you are actually using a conventional electric heater for most of your
winter heating. Doesn't sound like much of a "free lunch" to me. If you
don't believe me take a look at your heat pump sometime.
> When you consider that they can both heat
> using less power than other conventional methods
Compared with natural gas, heating oil, etc., it would use more power
during cold periods.
> and air condition,
> they're a "free dinner." No, you might not find them in arctic areas,
> because who needs A/C in the arctic?
No, but if they heat so well why don't they use them? Because they are to
inefficient to use up there.
>
> Congratulations on your ability to say "This is basic thermodynamics
> again," which means nothing, except that you want to impress everyone
> here. Monkey-see-monkey-do. Very nice, Mr. Dean.
I said it because that is what it is and maybe one day you might decide to
learn it.
>
> Try this:
>
> "It is a well established scientific fact that ordinary heat pumps take
> one unit of energy to run them and put out three to four or more times
> that same amount of energy in the form of heat."
> Pond and Baumgartner,
> "Nicola Tesla's Earthquake Machine"
> Their references:
>
> "Domestic Heat Pumps," by John Summer, Prism Press, 1976 page 1
>
> "Modern Refrigeration and Air Conditioning" by Althouse, Turnquist, and
> Bracciano, the Goodhert-Wilcox Company, 1988, page 827
>
Maybe under ideal conditions, but not during the middle of winter. Heat
pumps are nothing more than an air conditioner that can reverse the working
fluid's path between the evaporator and the condenser (it can move the
heat from the interior to the exterior as well as from the exterior to the
interior). I don't recall anyone ever saying that their air conditioner
was a "free lunch".
I live in the South and I don't care that it's not a "free lunch", I'm just
happy that it works reliably.
DaveHatunen
In article <5mi6o1$f...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>Thanks for snipping the post back - it was getting unwieldy. But I'm
>going to go back and quote what I said so you can show me where I
>"surmise" anything.
>
><begin BW quote >
>
>In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
>Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
>concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
>
>"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>dissolved gases."
>
>The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
>voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
>dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
>generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
>may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
>of the above passage.
>
><end BW quote>
>
>I intended the words "provocative passage" to indicate conjecture or
>speculation. The words "have a hard time ruling out" and "may or may
>not happen" were also intended to indicate my uncertainty as to the
>existance of the water-breakdown process. If there is some way I could
>have made that clearer to you, please let me know how and I'll try to
>improve my writing.
UI will say it again: an editorial paragraph in a handbook where the
editor says "it has been suggested that" and "would appear to generate"
is scientifically meaningless. If it has been suggested, where has it
been suggested? if it would appear to generate, where is the report
with the hard data?
> As I said, I do not know where or if there are published papers on the
>dielectric breakdown subject. Feel free to look around . :->
You are making the claim that the editorial paragraph deals wiht real
issues, so the burden is on you to first give us citations.
[...]
>>They cannnot repeat the experiment until it is adequately reported.
>
>I said "try to repeat "plausible (...) _results_", (meaning dissociation
>via dielectric breakdown), not necessarily an exact duplication of some
>previously reported experiment.
They are not "plausible results" until reported in a plausible manner.
Why is everyone touting this stuff soafraid to give hard facts?
>>Where is the deteiled report of the experiment they are to repeat?
>
>If they are the least bit creative, I think they could manage with the
>patent description. If they aren't creative, why even bother?
One is not supposed to be creative when repeating an experiment. The
repeater is supposed to do it in the same manner so the results will
be comparable. If the data are confirmed, then more creative
experiments should be performed to expand and solidify the hypothesis.
Why on earth should other people do the experiments for the ones making
the claim?
>>>>So. Let Meyer publish a paper so that scientist have something to
>>>>analyze.
>>>
>>>I don't think he has the background to publish anything the
>>>establishment would recognize. The patent was clearly a stretch for
>>>him. I just hope someone reasonably qualified is curious enough to
>>>bootleg a test or two and check it out.
>
>>Setting up such an experiment is not cheap, in time nor money. It would
>>be a little much to expect someone somewhere to do this.
>
>I guess we have different expectations of people. The experiment looks
>to me like it would make a good science project for a group of
>reasonably proficient high school students (hint, hint). Whether the
>phenomenon is real or not is immaterial - the experience of finding out
>for yourself is what makes science so rewarding.
Sheesh. No, it's not a good science project. It's a lot harder to do
than you apparently seem to understand. Even the data analysis isn't
all that easy. When I was teaching high school physics I had the class
do a simple pendulum experiment with string and large hex nuts as bobs.
They had to do a large number of experiments at verying lengths and
process the data. In those pre-personal computer days they discovered
what real science was like. I wished I had the equipment to set up a
bunch of Millikan oil drop experiments...
Bill Ward
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <5mi6o1$f...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>Thanks for snipping the post back - it was getting unwieldy. But I'm
>>going to go back and quote what I said so you can show me where I
>>"surmise" anything.
>>
>><begin BW quote >
>>
>>In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
>>Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
>>concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
>>
>>"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>>dissolved gases."
>>
>>The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
>>voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
>>dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
>>generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
>>may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
>>of the above passage.
>>
>><end BW quote>
>>
>>I intended the words "provocative passage" to indicate conjecture or
>>speculation. The words "have a hard time ruling out" and "may or may
>>not happen" were also intended to indicate my uncertainty as to the
>>existance of the water-breakdown process. If there is some way I could
>>have made that clearer to you, please let me know how and I'll try to
>>improve my writing.
>UI will say it again: an editorial paragraph in a handbook where the
>editor says "it has been suggested that" and "would appear to generate"
>is scientifically meaningless. If it has been suggested, where has it
>been suggested? if it would appear to generate, where is the report
>with the hard data?
>> As I said, I do not know where or if there are published papers on the
>>dielectric breakdown subject. Feel free to look around . :->
>You are making the claim that the editorial paragraph deals wiht real
>issues, so the burden is on you to first give us citations.
I don't think so, Dave. I made no claim, and I have no "burden".
Please understand, I appreciate your comments, but I reserve the right
to choose those I take seriously. This isn't one.
>[...]
>>>They cannnot repeat the experiment until it is adequately reported.
>>
>>I said "try to repeat "plausible (...) _results_", (meaning dissociation
>>via dielectric breakdown), not necessarily an exact duplication of some
>>previously reported experiment.
>They are not "plausible results" until reported in a plausible manner.
Different strokes ...
>Why is everyone touting this stuff soafraid to give hard facts?
Those "touting" it are profiting from ignorance. The more confusion,
the better.
>>>Where is the deteiled report of the experiment they are to repeat?
>>
>>If they are the least bit creative, I think they could manage with the
>>patent description. If they aren't creative, why even bother?
>One is not supposed to be creative when repeating an experiment. The
>repeater is supposed to do it in the same manner so the results will
>be comparable. If the data are confirmed, then more creative
>experiments should be performed to expand and solidify the hypothesis.
I guess it depends on who's doing the supposing.
>Why on earth should other people do the experiments for the ones making
>the claim?
Because they're curious?
>>>>>So. Let Meyer publish a paper so that scientist have something to
>>>>>analyze.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think he has the background to publish anything the
>>>>establishment would recognize. The patent was clearly a stretch for
>>>>him. I just hope someone reasonably qualified is curious enough to
>>>>bootleg a test or two and check it out.
>>
>>>Setting up such an experiment is not cheap, in time nor money. It would
>>>be a little much to expect someone somewhere to do this.
>>
>>I guess we have different expectations of people. The experiment looks
>>to me like it would make a good science project for a group of
>>reasonably proficient high school students (hint, hint). Whether the
>>phenomenon is real or not is immaterial - the experience of finding out
>>for yourself is what makes science so rewarding.
>Sheesh. No, it's not a good science project. It's a lot harder to do
>than you apparently seem to understand. Even the data analysis isn't
>all that easy. When I was teaching high school physics I had the class
>do a simple pendulum experiment with string and large hex nuts as bobs.
>They had to do a large number of experiments at verying lengths and
>process the data. In those pre-personal computer days they discovered
>what real science was like. I wished I had the equipment to set up a
>bunch of Millikan oil drop experiments...
Well, I'd agree that it's harder than swinging nuts. And I'd even agree
it's probably harder than it looks at first - most experimentation is.
But times have changed. High school kids are accomplishing amazing
things now. Thanks to those personal computers you mentioned, some of
them might be reading this thread right now instead of learning "real
science" by laboriously hand-cranking their pendulum data.
I'd be interested in seeing your thoughts about how you would go about
investigating water dissociation by dielectric breakdown.
I always look forward to your comments.
Regards,
Bill Ward
DaveHatunen
In article <5mkbd3$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
[...]
>>You are making the claim that the editorial paragraph deals wiht real
>>issues, so the burden is on you to first give us citations.
>
>I don't think so, Dave. I made no claim, and I have no "burden".
Not per se. But please reread your posts on the matter. There is little
point in quoting it elsewise.
>Please understand, I appreciate your comments, but I reserve the right
>to choose those I take seriously. This isn't one.
A mutual consideration, to be sure. But I do take unscientific comments
seriously when tehy masquerade as scientific or factual, especially in
groups likethis that start with sci.*.
[...]
>>They are not "plausible results" until reported in a plausible manner.
>
>Different strokes ...
Indeed. Some do prefer the implausible.
[...]
>>One is not supposed to be creative when repeating an experiment. The
>>repeater is supposed to do it in the same manner so the results will
>>be comparable. If the data are confirmed, then more creative
>>experiments should be performed to expand and solidify the hypothesis.
>
>I guess it depends on who's doing the supposing.
And that depends on whether one is searching for truth or comfort.
[...]
>>Sheesh. No, it's not a good science project. It's a lot harder to do
>>than you apparently seem to understand. Even the data analysis isn't
>>all that easy. When I was teaching high school physics I had the class
>>do a simple pendulum experiment with string and large hex nuts as bobs.
>>They had to do a large number of experiments at verying lengths and
>>process the data. In those pre-personal computer days they discovered
>>what real science was like. I wished I had the equipment to set up a
>>bunch of Millikan oil drop experiments...
>
>Well, I'd agree that it's harder than swinging nuts. And I'd even agree
>it's probably harder than it looks at first - most experimentation is.
I see you missed the point.
>> *********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
>> * In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
>> * Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
>> *********************************************************
Incapable of editing a post, too.
Richard K. Downer
Carl Dean wrote:
>
> > Really? Just "basic thermodynamics?" How nice.
> >
> > Ever been to the Lake Tahoe area (one of the ski and snow capitals of
> > the world), Carl? I live a half hour drive away from the lake itself.
> > The buildings in the place and the surrounding area are loaded with heat
> > pumps - compared to conventional electric heaters, they are definitely
> > looked at as a "free lunch."
>
> As compared to what? Most electric heat pumps come with backup
> conventional electric heating elements that come on when it gets really
> cold.
> So you are actually using a conventional electric heater for most of your
> winter heating. Doesn't sound like much of a "free lunch" to me. If you
> don't believe me take a look at your heat pump sometime.
You're talking about air/air heat pumps. There are others, too, you know
(or maybe you don't know). There are heat pumps that use groundwater (or
the ground itself) as the heat source, not outside air. The inefficiency
of an air/air heat pump at low outside temperatures is the result of the
small temperature difference between the outside air and the evaporator.
Since groundwater is usually considerably warmer than wintertime ambient
air, in colder climates their higher installation cost is justified by
their higher efficiencies compared to air/air heatpumps. Oddly enough,
in summer the groundwater is considerably cooler than ambient air, so
the increased efficiency continues in cooling mode, too. The Lake Tahoe
heat pumps may be of the groundwater variety.
As for "compared to what?" I'd say compared to electric heat. I have an
air/air heat pump, and it's considerably more efficient than electric.
Not as efficient as natural gas (I'm told), but natural gas isn't
available in my neighborhood. Maybe it's not available in Lake Tahoe,
either.
Now, what does any of this have to do with the Meyer patent?
--
Rick Downer
rkd...@ballard.ca.boeing.com
These opinions are not mine, they're Boeing's. Boeing paid me while I
opined them, so Boeing owns them. But Boeing might not agree with them.
Bill Ward
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <5mkbd3$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
<snip>
>>>Sheesh. No, it's not a good science project. It's a lot harder to do
>>>than you apparently seem to understand. Even the data analysis isn't
>>>all that easy. When I was teaching high school physics I had the class
>>>do a simple pendulum experiment with string and large hex nuts as bobs.
>>>They had to do a large number of experiments at verying lengths and
>>>process the data. In those pre-personal computer days they discovered
>>>what real science was like. I wished I had the equipment to set up a
>>>bunch of Millikan oil drop experiments...
>>
>>Well, I'd agree that it's harder than swinging nuts. And I'd even agree
>>it's probably harder than it looks at first - most experimentation is.
>I see you missed the point.
>
>>> *********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
>>> * In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
>>> * Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
>>> *********************************************************
>Incapable of editing a post, too.
Incapable, no, imperfect, yes. Sorry, I got distracted and posted
before clipping your sig. No offense intended.
But while we're on the subject, I think you may have inadvertently
overtrimmed my post at the end there, leaving out part of my comment
without warning to the reader. I'm going to try again, maybe this time
I'll get it right. :->
<begin BW quote>
Well, I'd agree that it's harder than swinging nuts. And I'd even agree
it's probably harder than it looks at first - most experimentation is.
But times have changed. High school kids are accomplishing amazing
things now. Thanks to those personal computers you mentioned, some of
them might be reading this thread right now instead of learning "real
science" by laboriously hand-cranking their pendulum data.
I'd be interested in seeing your thoughts about how you would go about
investigating water dissociation by dielectric breakdown.
I always look forward to your comments.
<end BW quote>
And Dave, some friendly advice: Lighten up. Smile. You'll live longer.
Regards,
Bill Ward
DaveHatunen
In article <5mkpb8$k...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>But while we're on the subject, I think you may have inadvertently
>overtrimmed my post at the end there, leaving out part of my comment
>without warning to the reader. I'm going to try again, maybe this time
>I'll get it right. :->
Not inadvertent, although I may have left out the elipsis.
Geneva
DaveHatunen wrote:
>
> In article <5mi6o1$f...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
> Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Thanks for snipping the post back - it was getting unwieldy. But I'm
> >going to go back and quote what I said so you can show me where I
> >"surmise" anything.
> >
> ><begin BW quote >
> >
> >Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
> >concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
> >
> >also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
> >liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
> >breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
> >Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
> >dissolved gases."
> >
> >voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
> >dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
> >generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
> >may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
> >of the above passage.
> >
> >
> >I intended the words "provocative passage" to indicate conjecture or
> >speculation. The words "have a hard time ruling out" and "may or may
> >not happen" were also intended to indicate my uncertainty as to the
> >existance of the water-breakdown process. If there is some way I could
> >have made that clearer to you, please let me know how and I'll try to
> >improve my writing.
>
> UI will say it again: an editorial paragraph in a handbook where the
> editor says "it has been suggested that" and "would appear to generate"
> is scientifically meaningless. If it has been suggested, where has it
> been suggested? if it would appear to generate, where is the report
> with the hard data?
>
> > As I said, I do not know where or if there are published papers on the
> >dielectric breakdown subject. Feel free to look around . :->
>
> issues, so the burden is on you to first give us citations.
>
>
> >>They cannnot repeat the experiment until it is adequately reported.
> >
> >I said "try to repeat "plausible (...) _results_", (meaning dissociation
> >via dielectric breakdown), not necessarily an exact duplication of some
> >previously reported experiment.
>
>
> >
> >If they are the least bit creative, I think they could manage with the
> >patent description. If they aren't creative, why even bother?
>
> repeater is supposed to do it in the same manner so the results will
> be comparable. If the data are confirmed, then more creative
> experiments should be performed to expand and solidify the hypothesis.
> the claim?
>
> >>>>analyze.
> >>>
> >>>I don't think he has the background to publish anything the
> >>>establishment would recognize. The patent was clearly a stretch for
> >>>him. I just hope someone reasonably qualified is curious enough to
> >>>bootleg a test or two and check it out.
> >
> >>be a little much to expect someone somewhere to do this.
> >
> >I guess we have different expectations of people. The experiment looks
> >to me like it would make a good science project for a group of
> >reasonably proficient high school students (hint, hint). Whether the
> >phenomenon is real or not is immaterial - the experience of finding out
> >for yourself is what makes science so rewarding.
>
> than you apparently seem to understand. Even the data analysis isn't
> all that easy. When I was teaching high school physics I had the class
> do a simple pendulum experiment with string and large hex nuts as bobs.
> They had to do a large number of experiments at verying lengths and
> process the data. In those pre-personal computer days they discovered
> what real science was like. I wished I had the equipment to set up a
> bunch of Millikan oil drop experiments...
>
>
> --
> *********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
> * In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
> * Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
> *********************************************************
irrelevant detail to the point of absurdity?
While you're at it, why not lay off the caustic, ad hominem rhetoric.
Nelson Navarro
P.S. By the way, it's clear from the content and tone of your posts that
you have nothing to fear in the land of the blind.
Nelson Navarro
Sorry about the mis-click Bill, my comments and observations were not
directed to you.
I enjoy reading your posts. I hope nobody squelches your spirit.
Nelson Navarro
Carl Dean
> > As compared to what? Most electric heat pumps come with backup
> > conventional electric heating elements that come on when it gets really
> > cold.
> > So you are actually using a conventional electric heater for most of
your
> > winter heating. Doesn't sound like much of a "free lunch" to me. If
you
> > don't believe me take a look at your heat pump sometime.
>
> You're talking about air/air heat pumps. There are others, too, you know
Yes, I was referring to air/air heat pumps; because this is what most
people associate with a "heat pump". The heat pumps that use the ground as
its heat source are more often referred to as a form of geothermal heat
(although it is also a heat pump).
>
> Now, what does any of this have to do with the Meyer patent?
Absolutely nothing. It's just that when somebody describes a heat pump as
some kind of wondrous device that is super efficient and can work its
miracles even in the arctic, I decided to try to tell him the "TRUTH".
Carl
Bill Ward
Nelson Navarro <nel...@epix.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Sorry about the mis-click Bill, my comments and observations were not
>directed to you.
No problem.
>I enjoy reading your posts. I hope nobody squelches your spirit.
Thanks, Nelson. I don't think anybody is really trying to squelch it,
but I appreciate the thought.
Regards,
Bill Ward
DaveHatunen
In article <338E20...@epix.net>, Nelson Navarro <nel...@epix.net> wrote:
>Geneva wrote:
[...]
>> Why don't you stop wasting bandwidth arguing subjective, contextually
>> irrelevant detail to the point of absurdity?
It's called the scientific method. Understanding how it works is kind
of crucial here.
>> While you're at it, why not lay off the caustic, ad hominem rhetoric.
I've gone back through it, and I'm having tourble finding any ad homiem
rhetoric. Perhaps you could quote some of it to me.
>> P.S. By the way, it's clear from the content and tone of your posts that
>> you have nothing to fear in the land of the blind.
Now that's a lot closer to ad hominem.
H2OPWRD
>Why don't you stop wasting bandwidth arguing subjective, contextually
>irrelevant detail to the point of absurdity?
>While you're at it, why not lay off the caustic, ad hominem rhetoric.
>
> Nelson Navarro
>
>P.S. By the way, it's clear from the content and tone of your posts that
>you have nothing to fear in the land of the blind.
>
>
Nice try at Scientific exploration amongst colleges Bill.
Now you have a taste of how i tfeels to be an inventor
and having everyone telling you, "what your doing is impossible".
So then you waste time arguing that you can instead of just
doing it and not worrying about "proving" anything to anyone.
You just proceed, as Stan Meyer, and James Patterson have
and produce a device to put to market.
DaveHatunen
In article <19970530042...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
H2OPWRD <h2o...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>Nice try at Scientific exploration amongst colleges Bill.
>Now you have a taste of how i tfeels to be an inventor
>and having everyone telling you, "what your doing is impossible".
>So then you waste time arguing that you can instead of just
>doing it and not worrying about "proving" anything to anyone.
>You just proceed, as Stan Meyer, and James Patterson have
>and produce a device to put to market.
Um. Meyer never quite got his product to market.
Bill Ward
h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD) wrote:
>Nice try at Scientific exploration amongst colleges Bill.
>Now you have a taste of how i tfeels to be an inventor
>and having everyone telling you, "what your doing is impossible".
In that position, I'd very nicely ask those people to explain to me why
they thought what I was trying to do was impossible. Then I'd listen
very carefully and try to understand what they were saying. If they
were right, I'd save a lot of time and money, and if they couldn't
explain it to my satisfaction, I could still proceed, knowing a little
more than I did before. Can't lose.
>So then you waste time arguing that you can instead of just
>doing itand not worrying about "proving" anything to anyone.
I think that's the biggest mistake - arguing instead of listening. Egos
get in the way, the argument gets personal, and everything goes to
worms. Argument doesn't prove anything, experiments do.
>You just proceed, as Stan Meyer, and James Patterson have
>and produce a device to put to market.
Well, I'm not at all convinced they have any working devices to sell.
One of the danger signs is when promoters start selling "dealerships"
and "kits" rather than actual working products. If I had some
revolutionary device, the last thing in the world I would do is to run
around and tell everybody before I had a tested product ready to sell.
Why invite competition?
Regards,
Bill Ward
DaveHatunen
In article <5mlt73$1...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Since Meyer has been successfully sued for fraud in Ohio, it would
appear that he tried to sell somethin or other.
Michael Hannon
Who said that an air/air heat pump will work in the arctic? Who limited
the concept of heat pumps to air/air anyway?
>
> Carl
The "TRUTH" is that heat pumps are viewed as highly efficient, and as
devices which consume less than they output, whether you want to accept
it or not. A heat pump is a heat pump, whether it uses ground water,
air, or whatever, and whether it is in a car, a computer, or anything
else, and they do, indeed, produce more energy in heat(or cooling) than
it takes to run them. The fact that they consume more electricity than
you like doesn't negate those facts one oita, and there are solar
powered heat pumps (for both heat and cooling from the same device) that
don't cost anything to run, other than routine maintenance, and their
initial cost.
One can be found in the book "Nicola Tesla's Eartquake Machine" by Pond
and Baumgartner, based on Tesla's oscillating engine.
OHannon*
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
I'd like to take a shot at explaining this, Michael, I think there's a
semantic problem here.
>The "TRUTH" is that heat pumps are viewed as highly efficient, and as
>devices which consume less than they output, whether you want to accept
>it or not. A heat pump is a heat pump, whether it uses ground water,
>air, or whatever, and whether it is in a car, a computer, or anything
>else, and they do, indeed, produce more energy in heat(or cooling) than
>it takes to run them.
Right here is the problem, I think. You are using the word "produce",
when "transfer" might be clearer. The system is "pumping" heat uphill
against a temperature gradient (from cold to hot). The infamous second
law of thermodynamics requires an external source of mechanical energy
to do that ("run themt", in your words). The greater the temperature
difference, the more external energy is needed. The total energy into
the system is the heat pumped up from the cold source plus the external
mechanical energy required to pump it.
All that energy (theoretically) comes out at the hot side, so it looks
like you got the heat pumped from the cold source for free. You didn't
exactly, because in a sense you paid for it with the pumping energy.
At any rate, no energy is "produced" in the system, only transferred
from the cold source and the mechanical power source to the hot sink.
The closer the cold source and hot sink are in temperature, the less
external energy is required and the more efficient the system becomes.
If the temperatures are equal, you don't need _any_ external energy.
In fact, if the "cold" source gets hotter than the "hot"sink" the
external energy required becomes negative, meaning you can extract
mechanical work from the system. It is then called a "heat engine".
The engine in your car is an example, where heat flows from hot
(combustion gases) to cold (exhaust) and mechanical energy is extracted
from the pistons to turn the crankshaft.
I hope this is more helpful than confusing.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Nelson Navarro
DaveHatunen wrote:
>
> In article <338E20...@epix.net>, Nelson Navarro <nel...@epix.net> wrote:
> >Geneva wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> irrelevant detail to the point of absurdity?
>
> of crucial here.
As is understanding how, when, and where to apply it. Consider the
following, for example:
Quoting the Electronic Engineers Handbook, Bill Ward wrote:
"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>>dissolved gases."
You responded:
"'It has been suggested' is scientifically meaningless. How about some
>peer-reviewed publications?"
I suggest to you that, in light of the abundantly obvious context in
which Bill Ward
employed the above quotation, which seems to escape you, and in light of
the fact that dielectric breakdown in solids and liquids is a complex,
not well understood process for which no simple theory exists, your
comment regarding the quote is itself meaningless.
>
> >> While you're at it, why not lay off the caustic, ad hominem rhetoric.
>
> I've gone back through it, and I'm having tourble finding any ad homiem
> rhetoric. Perhaps you could quote some of it to me.
Ok, we'll start with your innuendo that engineers, such as myself, do
not understand
physical laws:
>"Engineers are not the best people to ask about whether a process
>vilates physical laws. If it were, we would all now have Mr Cold Fusion
>running our cars."
Next, consider your gratuitous insult directed at Bill Ward:
"Incapable of editing a post, too."
Or, how about your sophomoric, ad hominem accusation:
"Instead you invented a few things you would have liked me to say so you
would have something to jump on."
>
> >> P.S. By the way, it's clear from the content and tone of your posts that
> >> you have nothing to fear in the land of the blind.
>
> Now that's a lot closer to ad hominem.
Yes it is. Annoying, isn't it?
Bill Ward
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <5mlt73$1...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip JW post>
>>
>>Well, I'm not at all convinced they have any working devices to sell.
>>One of the danger signs is when promoters start selling "dealerships"
>>and "kits" rather than actual working products. If I had some
>>revolutionary device, the last thing in the world I would do is to run
>>around and tell everybody before I had a tested product ready to sell.
>>Why invite competition?
>Since Meyer has been successfully sued for fraud in Ohio, it would
>appear that he tried to sell somethin or other.
I haven't really checked it out, but my impression is that he sold a
dealership, the dealer sued for a refund, and the court agreed with the
dealer.
Regards,
Bill Ward
H2OPWRD
In article <338F80...@epix.net>, Nelson Navarro <nel...@epix.net>
writes:
>the fact that dielectric breakdown in solids and liquids is a complex,
>not well understood process for which no simple theory exists, your
This seems to be what the majority seems to ignore. I applaud
Bill for stepping out of the middle of the road with his "mustered
objectivity." To even have a curious notion as to what may be
going on in Stan's process. Then we all saw just how tough that
can be when one begins to explore forbidden possibilities. Now
you know why Meyer does not engage in pointless discussion as
to why what he "is doing" is not impossible, he just keeps doing it.
Regards,
JW
Michael Hannon
I've been describing the process as the transfer of temperature change
previously, and I understand with what you're saying, and agree, Bill.
If the external conditions can get the working fluid/gas to operate on
its own, you've got an engine as well. I also am aware that the energy
"excess" is actually extracted and pumped (as I explained in earlier
posts) from one side to the other, and is not "produced," - quoting my
own earlier post, "a pump is a transfer device," whether it's pumping
oil, water, heat, or a "temperature change" (both a rise-heat and a
fall-cold - which is what most heat pumps for homes are designed to do).
There are closed-circuit turbine powerplants whose whole function is
based on heat pump technology, some using freon as the "working fluid,"
and my mentor has told me that he worked on one that was extremely
efficient, using a very small heat source to produce a lot of power.
So, heat pumps don't produce the heat they pump, but they require less
energy to run them than is transferred in their functioning, making them
low-grade "over-unity" devices, in that the heat they can extract and
pump cannot be produced by the same amount of energy it takes to run
them. Without a working fluid whose boiling point and evaporation
temperatures are within the range of the ambient temperatures of the
environment they are designed to run in, they don't work very well, if
at all, so the "soul" of a household-type heat pump, is its working
fluid, which extracts heat from one side to reach evaporation
temperature, becoming a hot gas passing into the other side, where it
condenses and thus returns to a liquid state, giving up this heat to the
side it condenses on, where it reverts back to a liquid, and is pumped
back to the other side to repeat the cycle again. The change of states
of the working fluid enhances the operation of the pumping action
dramatically, because the fluid is operating in those borderline
temperature areas between evaporation and liquification where you might
even say that required "quanta" of heat energy are transferred,
(extracted, and "dumped") as the fluid/gas changes states from one end
to the other, as
these state transition points force certain temperature changes to take
place which are non-linear with respect to the points before and after
the transitions - thus the quantum energy transfer analogy.
Just like when you boil water - you can get water up to near-boiling,
but then it takes a lot more energy to get it to change from liquid to
gas than it took on the way up to near-boiling - it absorbs a non-linear
amount of energy then before it finally suddenly starts turning to
steam.
The same thing happens with freon in a heat pump.
Best,
Michael*
http://www.overunity.de/finsrud.htm has a theory diagram on the
operation of the Finsrud device. I don't think it has any external
electrical power or electromagnets.
Ron Jeremy
Geneva (nel...@epix.net) wrote:
: Why don't you stop wasting bandwidth arguing subjective, contextually
: irrelevant detail to the point of absurdity?
: While you're at it, why not lay off the caustic, ad hominem rhetoric.
:
: Nelson Navarro
:
: P.S. By the way, it's clear from the content and tone of your posts that
: you have nothing to fear in the land of the blind.
Ever learn to use a text editor? Here you are spouting off about
"wasting bandwidth" and you proceed to repeat about 110 lines which have
no relevance to the "witty" resonse. I'm sure Dave and the rest of us
close minded, narrow thinking, educated, stomp out any new theory we
don't like crowd will be glad to eat a huge plate of crow when one of you
crackpots actually stumble into something.
tooie <caustic, ad hominem, and *sarcastic>
P.S. Are you really an engineer? They should revoke your degree!
DaveHatunen
In article <338F80...@epix.net>, Nelson Navarro <nel...@epix.net> wrote:
>DaveHatunen wrote:
[...]
>As is understanding how, when, and where to apply it. Consider the
>following, for example:
>
>Quoting the Electronic Engineers Handbook, Bill Ward wrote:
>
>"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>>>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>>>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>>>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>>>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>>>dissolved gases."
>
>You responded:
>
>"'It has been suggested' is scientifically meaningless. How about some
>>peer-reviewed publications?"
>
>I suggest to you that, in light of the abundantly obvious context in
>which Bill Ward
>employed the above quotation, which seems to escape you, and in light of
>the fact that dielectric breakdown in solids and liquids is a complex,
>not well understood process for which no simple theory exists, your
>comment regarding the quote is itself meaningless.
Are you claiming this handbook to be a peer reveiwed publication, or
what?
>> >> While you're at it, why not lay off the caustic, ad hominem rhetoric.
>>
>> I've gone back through it, and I'm having tourble finding any ad homiem
>> rhetoric. Perhaps you could quote some of it to me.
>
>Ok, we'll start with your innuendo that engineers, such as myself, do
>not understand
>physical laws:
>
>>"Engineers are not the best people to ask about whether a process
>>vilates physical laws. If it were, we would all now have Mr Cold Fusion
>>running our cars."
That's not ad hominem.
>Next, consider your gratuitous insult directed at Bill Ward:
>
>"Incapable of editing a post, too."
>
>Or, how about your sophomoric, ad hominem accusation:
That's not ad hominem either. Ad homenem is when I say something like,
"Jones is a known-pedophile, so we shouldn't beleive what he says, even
about Physics."
>"Instead you invented a few things you would have liked me to say so you
>would have something to jump on."
>> >> P.S. By the way, it's clear from the content and tone of your posts that
>> >> you have nothing to fear in the land of the blind.
>>
>> Now that's a lot closer to ad hominem.
>
>Yes it is. Annoying, isn't it?
Not really. But I do note ti when it comes from people complaining
about others doing it. And it wwas closer to ad hominem, but it wasn't
ad hominem.
Snotty comments, and mild insults are not ad hominem arguents.
DaveHatunen
In article <19970531075...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,>writes:
>
>>the fact that dielectric breakdown in solids and liquids is a complex,
>>not well understood process for which no simple theory exists, your
>
This is also the precise reason why peer-reveiwed publications of
well-controlled experiments by someone other than the promoter are
needed.
>Bill for stepping out of the middle of the road with his "mustered
>objectivity." To even have a curious notion as to what may be
>going on in Stan's process. Then we all saw just how tough that
>can be when one begins to explore forbidden possibilities. Now
>you know why Meyer does not engage in pointless discussion as
>to why what he "is doing" is not impossible, he just keeps doing it.
>Regards,
>JW
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip heat pump discussion>
>http://www.overunity.de/finsrud.htm has a theory diagram on the
>operation of the Finsrud device. I don't think it has any external
>electrical power or electromagnets.
I also found the following at:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/FINSRUD1.html
<begin quote>
Jack Schow, a Salt Lake friend of NEN, worked several years in Norway
and volunteered to call Reidar Finsrud at his home near Oslo.
Apparently, there is more to the device than shown on the Norwegian
television because Reidar mentioned that part of the mechanism was not
shown.
<end quote>
My take on this is that the artist is an honest man with a sense of
humor who is presenting us with a puzzle for our enjoyment. Sort of
like the magician who levitates the lady, not to be taken seriously.
If I were doing it, the "not shown" part would be an electromagnet
switched to give the ball a boost every time around the track.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
to...@sover.net (Ron Jeremy) wrote:
<snip Nelson Navarro's post>
>Ever learn to use a text editor? Here you are spouting off about
>"wasting bandwidth" and you proceed to repeat about 110 lines which have
>no relevance to the "witty" resonse. I'm sure Dave and the rest of us
>close minded, narrow thinking, educated, stomp out any new theory we
>don't like crowd will be glad to eat a huge plate of crow when one of you
>crackpots actually stumble into something.
>tooie <caustic, ad hominem, and *sarcastic>
>P.S. Are you really an engineer? They should revoke your degree!
Isn't that pretty harsh punishment for choosing not to snip 110 lines?
What would you suggest as the appropriate penalty for being caustic, ad
hominem, and sarcastic?
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon
>
> >http://www.overunity.de/finsrud.htm has a theory diagram on the
> >operation of the Finsrud device. I don't think it has any external
> >electrical power or electromagnets.
>
>
> http://www.padrak.com/ine/FINSRUD1.html
>
> <begin quote>
> Jack Schow, a Salt Lake friend of NEN, worked several years in Norway
> and volunteered to call Reidar Finsrud at his home near Oslo.
> Apparently, there is more to the device than shown on the Norwegian
> television because Reidar mentioned that part of the mechanism was not
> shown.
> <end quote>
>
> My take on this is that the artist is an honest man with a sense of
> humor who is presenting us with a puzzle for our enjoyment. Sort of
> like the magician who levitates the lady, not to be taken seriously.
>
> If I were doing it, the "not shown" part would be an electromagnet
> switched to give the ball a boost every time around the track.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Ward
Could very well be, Bill - my take on the intent behind the piece is
artistic tinted with science, so anything is possible.
We'll see - he's supposed to have built an "improved model" which he's
coming out with - Finsrud kinetic art piece #2. For some reason it
reminds me of the David Hamel rotating ball bearing with donut magnet.
Actually I think his secret is Rube Goldberg's ashes stuffed into the
ball, and he's rolling over and over.
Michael
re...@atomicsys.com
>True enough if it were electrolysis. The patent claims specifically
>that it is _not_ electrolysis, but a high-voltage induced breakdown of
>water acting as a dielectric. If true, wouldn't energy become the
>important parameter, not current? Can dielectric breakdown be ruled out
>as a method of decomposing water?
>Have you read the patent yet?
>Regards,
>Bill Ward
Any plumber knows not to smoke tobacco products around hot water heaters, you
could get your - - - - - ploomage blown off from Hydrogen gas generated from
heating water, and especilly electrical hot water heaters with bad heater
elements. big boom can happen.
BOB.
Paul F. Dietz
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:10:01 LOCAL, re...@atomicsys.com wrote:
>
>>True enough if it were electrolysis. The patent claims specifically
>>that it is _not_ electrolysis, but a high-voltage induced breakdown of
>>water acting as a dielectric. If true, wouldn't energy become the
>>important parameter, not current? Can dielectric breakdown be ruled out
>>as a method of decomposing water?
>Any plumber knows not to smoke tobacco products around hot water heaters, you
>could get your - - - - - ploomage blown off from Hydrogen gas generated from
>heating water, and especilly electrical hot water heaters with bad heater
>elements. big boom can happen.
That hydrogen comes from the magnesium sacrificial anode.
Paul
Harry H Conover
re...@atomicsys.com wrote:
:
:
: Any plumber knows not to smoke tobacco products around hot water heaters, you
: heating water, and especilly electrical hot water heaters with bad heater
: elements. big boom can happen.
Sure, but the hydrogen hazard associated with hot water heaters is due
to electrolysis. If you recall, all of these heaters are equiped with
a sacrificial anode that is needed because of the electrolytic action
that takes place in the tank (as a result of impure water contacting
dissimilar metals and producing an electrical current).
Harry C.
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bill Ward wrote:
<snip MH post>
>> I also found the following at:
>>
>> http://www.padrak.com/ine/FINSRUD1.html
>>
>> <begin quote>
>> Jack Schow, a Salt Lake friend of NEN, worked several years in Norway
>> and volunteered to call Reidar Finsrud at his home near Oslo.
>> Apparently, there is more to the device than shown on the Norwegian
>> television because Reidar mentioned that part of the mechanism was not
>> shown.
>> <end quote>
>>
>> My take on this is that the artist is an honest man with a sense of
>> humor who is presenting us with a puzzle for our enjoyment. Sort of
>> like the magician who levitates the lady, not to be taken seriously.
>>
>> If I were doing it, the "not shown" part would be an electromagnet
>> switched to give the ball a boost every time around the track.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Ward
>Could very well be, Bill - my take on the intent behind the piece is
>artistic tinted with science, so anything is possible.
>We'll see - he's supposed to have built an "improved model" which he's
>coming out with - Finsrud kinetic art piece #2. For some reason it
>reminds me of the David Hamel rotating ball bearing with donut magnet.
>Actually I think his secret is Rube Goldberg's ashes stuffed into the
>ball, and he's rolling over and over.
>Michael
Not bad, Michael.
It wouldn't hurt for all of us to quit taking things so seriously and
lighten up a bit.
Still chuckling,
Bill Ward
Richard Bell
In article <338FE3...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>So, heat pumps don't produce the heat they pump, but they require less
>energy to run them than is transferred in their functioning, making them
>low-grade "over-unity" devices, in that the heat they can extract and
>pump cannot be produced by the same amount of energy it takes to run
>them.
>
Heat pumps are not "over-unity" machines at all. If they were
"over-unity", they would require no outside power at all. They
would be built with heat engine working in parallel to run the
pump. I am arguing on economic, not thermodynamic, grounds.
If employing a heat pump between the condensor and feedwater inlet
of a boiler would have improved the efficiency of the plant at all,
they would have been standard in the 1890's ( the only improvement in
steamplant design since then was improved shapes for the turbine blades).
Carl Dean
> Who said that an air/air heat pump will work in the arctic?
You did.
> Who limited
> the concept of heat pumps to air/air anyway?
I did as a way to clarify what we are talking about. If you want to talk
about geothermal then say geothermal so that everyone will be able to
understand what you mean.
> The "TRUTH" is that heat pumps are viewed as highly efficient, and as
> devices which consume less than they output,
Depends on the operating temperatures/conditions.
>whether you want to accept it or not.
What I want is irrelevant to the "TRUTH".
Carl
Michael Hannon
I'll definitely second that one, Bill.
Now back to drawing first blood from unsuspecting passers-by.
Michael
K. Jones
Michael Hannon wrote:
> So, heat pumps don't produce the heat they pump, but they require less
> energy to run them than is transferred in their functioning, making them
> low-grade "over-unity" devices,
Is an air-conditioner an "over-unity" device?
If you take a window-shaker and put it in "backwards" so that the
condenser is inside the room, and the evaporator is outside,
what have you got??
> in that the heat they can extract and
> pump cannot be produced by the same amount of energy it takes to run
> them. Without a working fluid whose boiling point and evaporation
> temperatures are within the range of the ambient temperatures of the
> environment they are designed to run in, they don't work very well, if
> at all, so the "soul" of a household-type heat pump, is its working
> fluid, which extracts heat from one side to reach evaporation
> temperature, becoming a hot gas passing into the other side, where it
> condenses and thus returns to a liquid state, giving up this heat to the
> side it condenses on, where it reverts back to a liquid, and is pumped
> back to the other side to repeat the cycle again.
> The change of states
> of the working fluid enhances the operation of the pumping action
> dramatically, because the fluid is operating in those borderline
> temperature areas between evaporation and liquification where you might
> even say that required "quanta" of heat energy are transferred,
> (extracted, and "dumped") as the fluid/gas changes states from one end
> to the other, as
> these state transition points force certain temperature changes to take
> place which are non-linear with respect to the points before and after
> the transitions - thus the quantum energy transfer analogy.
30ish lines to tell us you finally read what a refrigeration cycle is.
> Just like when you boil water - you can get water up to near-boiling,
> but then it takes a lot more energy to get it to change from liquid to
> gas than it took on the way up to near-boiling - it absorbs a non-linear
> amount of energy then before it finally suddenly starts turning to
> steam.
> The same thing happens with freon in a heat pump.
And you've now discovered "sensible heat" and "latent
heat(vaporization)"
If you look up "specific heat","superheat", and "quality" of heat, you
might be able to carry on a conversation about heat pumps that perhaps
anyone else but you can understand.
Whoops, that would mean you would have to understand the concept of a
partial vacuum, and we know that ain't gunna happen.
Sorry, I got ahead of myself.
Hey, maybe you are right Mikey, since most "heat pumps" operate under
partial vacuums, maybe they are "over-unity" devices capable of
producing
thousands upon thousands of Horsepower, from the refrigeration molecules
"sucking force". You're really on to something Mikey!!
--
K. Jones
The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own,
they are not those of my employer,
and anyone else can speak for themselves.
H2OPWRD
In article <hatunenE...@netcom.com>, hat...@netcom.com
(DaveHatunen) writes:
>In article <5mefov$e...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>,
>Steve Spence <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Well Bill, I think you have made the most rational
explanation/discussion
>>of this topic yet. Just the facts, no flames, and held youself back when
>>silly comments were made on your ideas. keep it up! I look forward to
>>reading your posts.
>
>HIS ideas? Which were his ideas? I thought it was Meyer's ideas that
>needed defending.
Bill's "idea" was to look at a "suggested" explaination in his handbook.
And rather than anyone "helping"(my quotes)or looking for additional
reference to the subject reaction, Bill was summarily castigated for
using a somewhat vague reference. Why do you think it was called
a "Handbook"??? If the book had to site each of it's own references
how big do you think it would be????
Also I have an unexplained reason for not being able to post to this
particular thread. I am not sure if it is a "service" provider problem
or what. I have just posted the remainer of the WFC International
News Release to the Meyer Announcement thread successfully,
after not being able to post the first part as a start of a new thread.
So?????? Hoping this gets thru.
Regards,
JW
H2OPWRD
In article <01bc6f6c$b282d100$a69f45cf@deanmachine>, "Carl Dean"
<cde...@mindspring.com> writes:
The question to me is can you make enough electrical or
kenetic power to run the pump to push the fluid to transfer
the heat. You may be NOT able to do this in any environment.
But, can you trap the transferred heat, create steam, drive
a generator, power the compressor, transfer the heat??
If you can, that would appear to be equal unity. If you have
more power than needed to drive the pump, that would appear
to be over unity.
Regards,
JW
Carl Dean
> You may be NOT able to do this in any environment.
> But, can you trap the transferred heat, create steam, drive
> a generator, power the compressor, transfer the heat??
> If you can, that would appear to be equal unity. If you have
> more power than needed to drive the pump, that would appear
> to be over unity.
> Regards,
> JW
>
If the heat pump's transferred heat was used to create steam to produce
electricity, the amount of electricity produced would be less than that
which you started with. The laws of thermodynamics will not allow it to
happen any other way.
Carl
tim...@halcyon.com
>hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>
>>In article <5mi6o1$f...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Bill Ward <bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>>>Thanks for snipping the post back - it was getting unwieldy. But I'm
>>>going to go back and quote what I said so you can show me where I
>>>"surmise" anything.
>>>
>>><begin BW quote >
>>>
>>>In fact, I found the following provocative passage in the Electronics
>>>Engineers Handbook, by Donald Fink (McGraw Hill, 1975) pg 6-39,
>>>concerning dielectric breakdown in liquids:
>>>
>>>"It has been suggested in recent years that breakdown can be initiated
>>>also by the formation of tiny gas bubbles in the high fields in the
>>>liquid, leading to completion of the event by gas discharges. [...] The
>>>breakdown field of liquids extends from less than 10E7 to 5 x 10E8 V/m.
>>>Lower values are found in impure liquids and in those containing
>>>dissolved gases."
>>>
>>>The circuit described in the patent would appear to generate high
>>>voltage pulses (over 1000V is claimed), the water is not pure,
>>>dissolved gases are present, so I have a hard time ruling out gas
>>>generation from dielectric breakdown without doing an experiment. It
>>>may or may not happen, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous in light
>>>of the above passage.
>>>
>>><end BW quote>
>>>
>>>I intended the words "provocative passage" to indicate conjecture or
>>>speculation. The words "have a hard time ruling out" and "may or may
>>>not happen" were also intended to indicate my uncertainty as to the
>>>existance of the water-breakdown process. If there is some way I could
>>>have made that clearer to you, please let me know how and I'll try to
>>>improve my writing.
>
>>UI will say it again: an editorial paragraph in a handbook where the
>>editor says "it has been suggested that" and "would appear to generate"
>>is scientifically meaningless. If it has been suggested, where has it
>>been suggested? if it would appear to generate, where is the report
>>with the hard data?
>
>>> As I said, I do not know where or if there are published papers on the
>>>dielectric breakdown subject. Feel free to look around . :->
>
>>You are making the claim that the editorial paragraph deals wiht real
>>issues, so the burden is on you to first give us citations.
>
>I don't think so, Dave. I made no claim, and I have no "burden".
>
>Please understand, I appreciate your comments, but I reserve the right
>to choose those I take seriously. This isn't one.
>>[...]
>
>>>>They cannnot repeat the experiment until it is adequately reported.
>>>
>>>I said "try to repeat "plausible (...) _results_", (meaning dissociation
>>>via dielectric breakdown), not necessarily an exact duplication of some
>>>previously reported experiment.
>
>>They are not "plausible results" until reported in a plausible manner.
>
>Different strokes ...
>
>>Why is everyone touting this stuff soafraid to give hard facts?
>
>Those "touting" it are profiting from ignorance. The more confusion,
>the better.
>
>>>>Where is the deteiled report of the experiment they are to repeat?
>>>
>>>If they are the least bit creative, I think they could manage with the
>>>patent description. If they aren't creative, why even bother?
>
>>One is not supposed to be creative when repeating an experiment. The
>>repeater is supposed to do it in the same manner so the results will
>>be comparable. If the data are confirmed, then more creative
>>experiments should be performed to expand and solidify the hypothesis.
>
>I guess it depends on who's doing the supposing.
>
>>Why on earth should other people do the experiments for the ones making
>>the claim?
>
>Because they're curious?
>
>>>>>>So. Let Meyer publish a paper so that scientist have something to
>>>>>>analyze.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think he has the background to publish anything the
>>>>>establishment would recognize. The patent was clearly a stretch for
>>>>>him. I just hope someone reasonably qualified is curious enough to
>>>>>bootleg a test or two and check it out.
>>>
>>>>Setting up such an experiment is not cheap, in time nor money. It would
>>>>be a little much to expect someone somewhere to do this.
>>>
>>>I guess we have different expectations of people. The experiment looks
>>>to me like it would make a good science project for a group of
>>>reasonably proficient high school students (hint, hint). Whether the
>>>phenomenon is real or not is immaterial - the experience of finding out
>>>for yourself is what makes science so rewarding.
>
>>Sheesh. No, it's not a good science project. It's a lot harder to do
>>than you apparently seem to understand. Even the data analysis isn't
>>all that easy. When I was teaching high school physics I had the class
>>do a simple pendulum experiment with string and large hex nuts as bobs.
>>They had to do a large number of experiments at verying lengths and
>>process the data. In those pre-personal computer days they discovered
>>what real science was like. I wished I had the equipment to set up a
>>bunch of Millikan oil drop experiments...
>
>Well, I'd agree that it's harder than swinging nuts. And I'd even agree
>it's probably harder than it looks at first - most experimentation is.
>
>But times have changed. High school kids are accomplishing amazing
>things now. Thanks to those personal computers you mentioned, some of
>them might be reading this thread right now instead of learning "real
>science" by laboriously hand-cranking their pendulum data.
>
>I'd be interested in seeing your thoughts about how you would go about
>investigating water dissociation by dielectric breakdown.
>
>I always look forward to your comments.
>
>Regards,
>Bill Ward
>
>
>>[...]
>
>
>>--
>> *********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
>> * In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
>> * Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
>> *********************************************************
.............................................
Thought I'd add a note :
The Meyer Fuel Cell info I've downloaded suggests that by
driving a tuned cavity with groups of HV Pulses who's pulse width and
repition rate are calibrated around 3 to 6 MHz depending on the
natural resonance of the cavity used will in effect stretch the H-O
bonds at each pulse culminating in breaking the bonds at the end of
each pulse group.
The cell consists of two metal cylinders one inside the other
fixed inside a larger glass cylinder filled with water and sealed to
allow gas and electrical ports) The cell's design emphasizes
incorporation of it's natural resonance.
In my opinion I don't know if it REALLY works but since
commercial hydrogen is produced by injecting super heated steam into
white hot coals I think there's a good chance this just may work. Both
methods separate the H-O bonds through shock. One through thermal
shock, the other through electrical shock.
It wasn't suggested but I believe the "Groups" of pulses
employed should ramp the voltage as well as duty and rep rate. I would
even test polarity reversal methods, after all, we're attempting to
break the bonds so give 'em a good kick at the right time.
My Regards to all...
T.O. Prellwitz
tim...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/timilen/
Harry H Conover
tim...@halcyon.com wrote:
: In my opinion I don't know if it REALLY works but since
: commercial hydrogen is produced by injecting super heated steam into
: white hot coals I think there's a good chance this just may work. Both
: methods separate the H-O bonds through shock. One through thermal
: shock, the other through electrical shock.
Tim, while some of the energy to produce hydrogen by the commercial
'water gas' and 'producer gas' method is thermal, the bulk of
energy required to break the hydrogen bond is from the associated oxidation-
reduction reaction: H20 + C --> H2 + CO. The reaction is endothermic,
hence some heat is absorbed from the reaction environment, still it is
incorrect to state that the liberation of hydrogen from water is as a
result of thermal shock.
With respect to Meyer's claims of breaking the hydrogen bond though the
use of resonance, the frequencies cited are so far removed from those of
water molecule resonance as to provide negligible excitation. (Like pushing
a swing at a rate far removed from its resonant frequency.)
Meyer's work, like that of other pseudo-scientists, swindlers, and
confidence men is intentionally structured to appeal to those with
little basic scientific knowledge, because on critical examination
literally all his claims have serious holes in them -- holes not
visible to those who recognize only the sound of buzzwords
but are ignorant of actual meanings and ramifications.
Harry C.
HATUNEN
In article <33ab9231...@news.halcyon.com>, <tim...@halcyon.com> wrote:
[Doesn't ANBODY know how to trim a quote]
>Thought I'd add a note :
>
> The Meyer Fuel Cell info I've downloaded suggests that by
>driving a tuned cavity with groups of HV Pulses who's pulse width and
>repition rate are calibrated around 3 to 6 MHz depending on the
>natural resonance of the cavity used will in effect stretch the H-O
>bonds at each pulse culminating in breaking the bonds at the end of
>each pulse group.
> The cell consists of two metal cylinders one inside the other
>fixed inside a larger glass cylinder filled with water and sealed to
>allow gas and electrical ports) The cell's design emphasizes
>incorporation of it's natural resonance.
> In my opinion I don't know if it REALLY works but since
>commercial hydrogen is produced by injecting super heated steam into
>white hot coals I think there's a good chance this just may work. Both
>methods separate the H-O bonds through shock. One through thermal
>shock, the other through electrical shock.
> It wasn't suggested but I believe the "Groups" of pulses
>employed should ramp the voltage as well as duty and rep rate. I would
>even test polarity reversal methods, after all, we're attempting to
>break the bonds so give 'em a good kick at the right time.
>My Regards to all...
>T.O. Prellwitz
>tim...@halcyon.com
>http://www.halcyon.com/timilen/
Really, teh question is not whether one can separate the H and O in H2O;
there are any number of ways to do that. And the question is not whether
Meyer's cell will do so. The question is whether Meyer's cell does so in
some very unusual manner, such as doing this with a significantly reduced
loss of energy per liter of H produced (unlikely since current methods are
so efficient) or whether it produces H with so little energy input that
recombustion of the hydrogen produces more energy than was requireed to make
it in the first place (impossible).
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
Michael Hannon
>
> The Meyer Fuel Cell info I've downloaded suggests that by
> driving a tuned cavity with groups of HV Pulses who's pulse width and
> repition rate are calibrated around 3 to 6 MHz depending on the
> natural resonance of the cavity used will in effect stretch the H-O
> bonds at each pulse culminating in breaking the bonds at the end of
> each pulse group.
> The cell consists of two metal cylinders one inside the other
> fixed inside a larger glass cylinder filled with water and sealed to
> allow gas and electrical ports) The cell's design emphasizes
> incorporation of it's natural resonance.
> In my opinion I don't know if it REALLY works but since
> commercial hydrogen is produced by injecting super heated steam into
> white hot coals I think there's a good chance this just may work. Both
> methods separate the H-O bonds through shock. One through thermal
> shock, the other through electrical shock.
> It wasn't suggested but I believe the "Groups" of pulses
> employed should ramp the voltage as well as duty and rep rate. I would
> even test polarity reversal methods, after all, we're attempting to
> break the bonds so give 'em a good kick at the right time.
> My Regards to all...
> T.O. Prellwitz
> tim...@halcyon.com
> http://www.halcyon.com/timilen/
Why is it that use of resonance is overlooked here? It takes much less
total energy to vibrate anything apart at resonance than at any other
frequency - ask anyone who resonance tests aircraft or car parts - you
have to engineer resonance of a part to any vibrational variables in its
service environment out, or it will self-destruct prematurely in
service.
Imagine how long an engine block would last if its resonant frequency,
or a fundamental, or primary harmonic of it, was repeatedly hit in the
midrange of its power band, and frequently in normal driving.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> tim...@halcyon.com wrote:
> : In my opinion I don't know if it REALLY works but since
> : commercial hydrogen is produced by injecting super heated steam into
> : white hot coals I think there's a good chance this just may work. Both
> : methods separate the H-O bonds through shock. One through thermal
> : shock, the other through electrical shock.
>
> 'water gas' and 'producer gas' method is thermal, the bulk of
> energy required to break the hydrogen bond is from the associated oxidation-
> reduction reaction: H20 + C --> H2 + CO. The reaction is endothermic,
> hence some heat is absorbed from the reaction environment, still it is
> incorrect to state that the liberation of hydrogen from water is as a
> result of thermal shock.
>
> With respect to Meyer's claims of breaking the hydrogen bond though the
> use of resonance, the frequencies cited are so far removed from those of
> water molecule resonance as to provide negligible excitation. (Like pushing
> a swing at a rate far removed from its resonant frequency.)
That analogy is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard, especially from
someone who teaches science. The resonant frequency of a swing? Oh, come now,
Harry - you can do better than that.
Let's see ANY proof of your statements, Harry - they are pure
unadulterated unfounded conjecture on your part, based on nothing
but your ignorant, unresearched assumptions, and is therefore fraudulent
commentary, because you know absolutely NOTHING (that's spelled
N-O-T-H-I-N-G) about what water does at the frequencies Meyer used,
or Puharich, or Keely, or anyone else. You're fabricating a totally
uninformed, bogus answer, and calling it reality.
What background do YOU have in the electrical, or vibratory, resonant
dissociation of water?
Absolutely NONE - not one second of background.
> Meyer's work, like that of other pseudo-scientists, swindlers, and
> confidence men is intentionally structured to appeal to those with
> little basic scientific knowledge, because on critical examination
> literally all his claims have serious holes in them -- holes not
> visible to those who recognize only the sound of buzzwords
> but are ignorant of actual meanings and ramifications.>
That paragraph is absolute, slanderous fabrication, with not one
shread of evidence to prove it. Prove any of what you just said.
If anyone is playing pseudo-science and a confidence game here, it is
you, Mr. CONover, claiming what water does in conditions you know
nothing about - you have not researched it one iota, either by
experiment, text, or anything else, and yet you pose yourself as an
authority on the subject of resonant water dissociation - that is FRAUD,
Mr. CONover - spelled (F-R-A-U-D) and is an attempt at intentional
deception and misleading conclusions, when you have no background in
the area whatsoever.
You are running a con game on this person, Harry, by telling him
conclusions you have no basis for, appealing to his belief that you know
what you're talking about, using a whole slew of "buzzwords" yourself,
in an attempt to convince this person that you're the trustworthy, savvy,
helpful, protective soul who just wants him to know the TRUTH about
resonant water separation, when the fact is that you have never conducted
or read reports on any experimentation, or anything else whatever disproving
in any way the resonant dissociation of water, and are peddling nothing but
your own unfounded fabrications about the resonant dissociation of water.
You are doing EXACTLY what you been accusing Meyer of doing, while he has
the statements of eye witnesses, including H2OPWRD in this NG, and patents,
by himself, and Puharich, and the witnessed demonstrations of one John Keely
as well as a demonstration of the process for anyone who wants to go see it,
and YOU? YOU have NOTHING - NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER disproving any of it.
Just who is conning whom here, Mr. CONover?
A century-old qualified-witness record of the resonant vibratory dissociation
of water by devices invented and constructed by John Keely, and the force
created from that dissociation, is at the following address:
http://www.svpvril.com/Water.html#TOP water
OHannon
What do you have, Mr. CONover to counter this? You have nothing, and never have.
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Harry H Conover wrote:
: >
: > tim...@halcyon.com wrote:
: > : In my opinion I don't know if it REALLY works but since
: > : commercial hydrogen is produced by injecting super heated steam into
: > : white hot coals I think there's a good chance this just may work. Both
: > : methods separate the H-O bonds through shock. One through thermal
: > : shock, the other through electrical shock.
: >
: > Tim, while some of the energy to produce hydrogen by the commercial
: > 'water gas' and 'producer gas' method is thermal, the bulk of
: > energy required to break the hydrogen bond is from the associated oxidation-
: > reduction reaction: H20 + C --> H2 + CO. The reaction is endothermic,
: > hence some heat is absorbed from the reaction environment, still it is
: > incorrect to state that the liberation of hydrogen from water is as a
: > result of thermal shock.
: >
: > With respect to Meyer's claims of breaking the hydrogen bond though the
: > use of resonance, the frequencies cited are so far removed from those of
: > water molecule resonance as to provide negligible excitation. (Like pushing
: > a swing at a rate far removed from its resonant frequency.)
:
: That analogy is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard, especially from
: someone who teaches science. The resonant frequency of a swing? Oh, come now,
: Harry - you can do better than that.
I tried to make the analogy as simple as possible, so that even you
could understand it. Evidently, even this passed over your head.
: Let's see ANY proof of your statements, Harry - they are pure
: unadulterated unfounded conjecture on your part, based on nothing
: but your ignorant, unresearched assumptions, and is therefore fraudulent
: commentary, because you know absolutely NOTHING (that's spelled
: N-O-T-H-I-N-G) about what water does at the frequencies Meyer used,
: or Puharich, or Keely, or anyone else. You're fabricating a totally
: uninformed, bogus answer, and calling it reality.
Check any physics text, Micheal.
: What background do YOU have in the electrical, or vibratory, resonant
: dissociation of water?
Same as every other "expert" in this field -- precisely none! There is
no established evidence that the effect even exists.
[remaining rambling babble and rant deleted]
Harry C.
HATUNEN
In article <33ADD9...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[doesn't anyone around here know how to use their editor to trim quotes?
Sheesh]
>Why is it that use of resonance is overlooked here? It takes much less
>total energy to vibrate anything apart at resonance than at any other
>frequency - ask anyone who resonance tests aircraft or car parts - you
>have to engineer resonance of a part to any vibrational variables in its
>service environment out, or it will self-destruct prematurely in
>service.
>Imagine how long an engine block would last if its resonant frequency,
>or a fundamental, or primary harmonic of it, was repeatedly hit in the
>midrange of its power band, and frequently in normal driving.
>OHannon
You're wrong. You've got the Physics wrong. It takes just as much energy to
"vibrate anything apart" at some sort of resonance than by a direct
application of energy. The difference is that by using resonance, you get to
apply that energy in smaller doses. Like a kid pumpin a swing, it seems easy
to keep it going once it's going on a big arc, but it took a lot of small
pumps to get it there.
Resonance *stores* energy already supplied; should the last little input of
energy make the total energy above the binding energy or somesuch, then
things may break down, but remember, the last little straw is not what breaks
the camel's back; the camel's back is broken by the total load.
Robert Erck
In article <5om0jc$1...@chronicle.concentric.net>, Hat...@cris.com
(HATUNEN) wrote:
> In article <33ADD9...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [doesn't anyone around here know how to use their editor to trim quotes?
> Sheesh]
>
> >Why is it that use of resonance is overlooked here? It takes much less
> >total energy to vibrate anything apart at resonance than at any other
> >frequency - ask anyone who resonance tests aircraft or car parts - you
> >have to engineer resonance of a part to any vibrational variables in its
> >service environment out, or it will self-destruct prematurely in
> >service.
> >Imagine how long an engine block would last if its resonant frequency,
> >or a fundamental, or primary harmonic of it, was repeatedly hit in the
> >midrange of its power band, and frequently in normal driving.
> >OHannon
>
> You're wrong. You've got the Physics wrong. It takes just as much energy to
> "vibrate anything apart" at some sort of resonance than by a direct
> application of energy. The difference is that by using resonance, you get to
> apply that energy in smaller doses. Like a kid pumpin a swing, it seems easy
> to keep it going once it's going on a big arc, but it took a lot of small
> pumps to get it there.
>
> Resonance *stores* energy already supplied; should the last little input of
> energy make the total energy above the binding energy or somesuch, then
> things may break down, but remember, the last little straw is not what breaks
> the camel's back; the camel's back is broken by the total load.
>
>
> --
> ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
> * Daly City California: *
> * where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
> * and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
-----------
Hannon's America of the future: where little kids are sat in enormous
swingsets, and are employed to generate power using the resonance
principle during playtime. :-)
Actually, what I think Hannon is trying to say is that it taks a lot less
instantaneously applied *force* to break a *physical object* apart, if the
physical object is undergoing normal-mode vibrations.
Michael Hannon
Any part, such as an A-frame, which operates in an environment where its
resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
frequency is never hit. THIS ISN"T CONJECTURE - IT IS FACT, despite the
fact that the total energy absorbed by the resonant A-frame could easily
be only ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH or much less of what the non-resonant A-frame
absorbs, without breaking. A bearing that hits resonance may only last
minutes, while without hitting resonance, could last for YEARS, enduring
thousands of times the energy which failed the other resonant bearing in
minutes.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Baloney.
OHannon
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: Any part, such as an A-frame, which operates in an environment where its
: resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
: MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
: frequency is never hit.
What is the resonant frequency of a water molecule?
What is the excitation frequency provide by Meyer's gizmo?
Which comes closer to the resonant frequency of a water
molecule, Meyer's gizmo or an ordinary microwave oven?
If the answer is a microwave oven, wouldn't I be far better
off to place an electrolysis cell into a microwave oven, than
to use the Meyer gizmo?
See if you can answer these without attacking anyone or changing
the subject. I'll bet $10 you can't respond OR can't respond
without an ad hominem attack. Am I on?
Harry C.
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> :
> : Any part, such as an A-frame, which operates in an environment where its
> : resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
> : MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
> : frequency is never hit.
>
> What is the resonant frequency of a water molecule?
>
> What is the excitation frequency provide by Meyer's gizmo?
>
width is of one frequency, while the modulation frequency is at a lower
one. My understanding from what H2OPWRD has given, and the patent, is
that the pulse width is in the 6MHz area(but a pulse has high harmonic
content, so the actual harmonics could be octaves above that) while the
modulation frequency is about 50 khz, but in groups, at a lower
frequency which is dependent on current flow - when it starts to flow,
the pulse train is stopped, because the water is already breaking down,
which is what begins to allow the increased current to flow in the first
place, because its dielectric strength has been destroyed by the
resonant high voltage, low-current pulse train. It's not a simple
waveform, but not that difficult to crudely produce by the gating of the
6MHz width pulse.
> Which comes closer to the resonant frequency of a water
> molecule, Meyer's gizmo or an ordinary microwave oven?
>
I'm dealing with a neanderthal.
> If the answer is a microwave oven, wouldn't I be far better
> off to place an electrolysis cell into a microwave oven, than
> to use the Meyer gizmo?
>
A real dinosaur.
Try it, Harry - put a Meyer cell in a microwave.
Are you on pills?
> See if you can answer these without attacking anyone or changing
> the subject. I'll bet $10 you can't respond OR can't respond
> without an ad hominem attack. Am I on?
>
> Harry C.
Save your money, Harry - you've insulted, defamed, discredited without
any foundation, and attacked, too many innocent people already to get
off so easy.
Ring a bell, Harry. Hit the ringing bell at just the right instant, and
it will ring louder from very little added energy. Keep hitting it at
that specifically-timed moment, with that little bit of energy, and
eventually the bell will self-destruct. Tesla proved this over a century
ago, with electricity, in his scalar wave magnification experiments at
Colorado Springs, and in acoustics and mechanical vibration with his
mechanical oscillator - it is now called amplitude modulated additive
synthesis in the audio industry - musicians and sound people know it as
feedback, and it is highly destructive and powerful - ultrasonic
feedback can cause deafness in someone without their even knowing it,
and much worse - John Keely was using the same principles with his
devices in the last half of the 19th century - some of his devices even
required the application of certain specific colors of light, which is
nothing but a higher harmonic of sound, to certain resonators, in order
to operate, and it wasn't because he liked the color - it was because
that color was a resonant harmonic of a lower frequency he was working
with. He knew more about amplitude modulation additive synthesis in 1875
than virtually anyone does today, and he was using it, at unheard-of
frequencies, way back then. The fact that you don't get it isn't any
proof that it has suddenly disappeared from reality. It happens in water
molecules just as it happens in auto parts and microphones and speakers,
and it does not require constant input at the resonant frequency of the
water molecule, if properly timed, to have the needed effect, just as it
is not required on a ringing bell to get it to self-destruct.
Strategically timed pulses are all that is necessary, (just like in
hitting a punching bag) and a pulse (which, as you know, is loaded with
harmonics) whose width is of one frequency can be applied at a lower
frequency application rate, yielding the required result - this is
called economy in the application of energy, just like the
power-on-demand circuit, where only the minimum required power is
applied at exactly the right moment to get the job done.
OHannon
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Harry H Conover wrote:
: >
: > Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: > :
: > : Any part, such as an A-frame, which operates in an environment where its
: > : resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
: > : MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
: > : frequency is never hit.
: >
: > What is the resonant frequency of a water molecule?
: >
: > What is the excitation frequency provide by Meyer's gizmo?
: >
: Which frequency - the cell operates on pulse width modulation. The pulse
: width is of one frequency,
Sorry Michael, pulse width is in time interval units, not frequency
units. You score again.
: while the modulation frequency is at a lower
: one. My understanding from what H2OPWRD has given, and the patent, is
: that the pulse width is in the 6MHz area
Guess you've proved me a moron again Michael. I don't even know what
a pulse width of 6MHz is, but do you? I know what a pulse width of
10-Milliseconds is, or 10-Microseconds, but certainly not 6-MHz.
MHz is mega-Hertz, a unit of frequency (as in resonant frequency)
but it is not, by any means, a unit or measure of pulse width.
Bzzzp! You score again.
: (but a pulse has high harmonic
: content, so the actual harmonics could be octaves above that) while the
: modulation frequency is about 50 khz, but in groups, at a lower
: frequency which is dependent on current flow - when it starts to flow,
: the pulse train is stopped, because the water is already breaking down,
: which is what begins to allow the increased current to flow in the first
: place, because its dielectric strength has been destroyed by the
: resonant high voltage, low-current pulse train. It's not a simple
: waveform, but not that difficult to crudely produce by the gating of the
: 6MHz width pulse.
I read the silly patent, it's just a simple wave train that repeats at
a constant frequency.
Perhaps an introductory knowledge of the Fourier Transform would help
you with your hand waving expanation, but in the case of the Meyer
gizmo, even that powerful tool probably wouldn't help much.
:
: > Which comes closer to the resonant frequency of a water
: > molecule, Meyer's gizmo or an ordinary microwave oven?
: >
:
: I'm dealing with a neanderthal.
Fortunatly, I'm only dealing with a guy that just lost a $10 bet.
Better luck next time.
:
: > If the answer is a microwave oven, wouldn't I be far better
: > off to place an electrolysis cell into a microwave oven, than
: > to use the Meyer gizmo?
: >
: A real dinosaur.
Sorry, you don't get to lose $20 with repeated ad hominem attacks.
Sadly, my challenge was only for $10, else I could have really
taken you to the cleaners! :-)
: Try it, Harry - put a Meyer cell in a microwave.
: Are you on pills?
Well, not a Meyer's gizmo, but an electrolysis cell in a microwave is
a piece of cake for anyone with even a small amount of electronics
background. You simply isolate the d.c. feed to the cell from the
microwave's r.f. by employing some r.f. isolation in the form of
a decoupling device (likely, a simple choke or inductance will do
nicely).
It's not only possible, it's easy. See there Michael, you could
have lost another ten spot.
:
: > See if you can answer these without attacking anyone or changing
: > the subject. I'll bet $10 you can't respond OR can't respond
: > without an ad hominem attack. Am I on?
: >
: > Harry C.
:
: Save your money, Harry - you've insulted, defamed, discredited without
: any foundation, and attacked, too many innocent people already to get
: off so easy.
Ah, Michael! You're just ticked because I won the bet so easily.
Hell man, it's no contest. I won't even try to collect from you
on the bet.
:
: Ring a bell, Harry. Hit the ringing bell at just the right instant, and
Sorry Michael, you don't even have a clue about the subjects you post
and the semi-technical terminolgy you like to throw around.
So far as I can tell, you've now soundly flamed and mouthed off at
everyone on this newsgroup that has ever made an effort to point you in
the direction of knowledge, rational logic and truth.
You've totally rejected all of the advice, guidance, and knowledge
extended to you by the many informed and experienced professionals that
frequent this newsgroup. The resulting attitude and behavior that you've
exhibited here doesn't make me angry -- it saddens me.
Trust me that any follow-ups I may subsequently make to your posts will
be intended for the benefit of others than yourself.
Harry C.
Ian Johnston
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: A bearing that hits resonance may only last
: minutes, while without hitting resonance, could last for YEARS, enduring
: thousands of times the energy which failed the other resonant bearing in
: minutes.
"Energy" - that's the word, my boy. Resonant excitation simply gives better
energy transfer. But it's still just transfer. The energy has to come from
somewhere.
You knew that, of course.
Ian
HATUNEN
In article <33AEDD...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Baloney.
>OHannon
Damn. I knew I should have left graduate Physics sooner than I did. All that
baloney I was being stuffed with...
(I don't know why anyone would pay any attention to someone who can't even
figure out how to delete material in his posts; I mean, how much smarts does
that take?)
HATUNEN
In article <33AEDE...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Robert Erck wrote:
[...]
>> Hannon's America of the future: where little kids are sat in enormous
>> swingsets, and are employed to generate power using the resonance
>> principle during playtime. :-)
>>
>> Actually, what I think Hannon is trying to say is that it taks a lot less
>> instantaneously applied *force* to break a *physical object* apart, if the
>> physical object is undergoing normal-mode vibrations.
>
>Any part, such as an A-frame, which operates in an environment where its
>resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
>MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
>frequency is never hit. THIS ISN"T CONJECTURE - IT IS FACT, despite the
>fact that the total energy absorbed by the resonant A-frame could easily
>be only ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH or much less of what the non-resonant A-frame
>absorbs, without breaking. A bearing that hits resonance may only last
>minutes, while without hitting resonance, could last for YEARS, enduring
>thousands of times the energy which failed the other resonant bearing in
>minutes.
>OHannon
Fatigue has nothing to do with resonance. It does depend on repeated
stressing of the material, but periodicity is not a factor, except to the
extent that it creates more cyles of stressing in a given time frame than
might occur under other modes. For instance, the failures of the first
commercial jetliners, the British Comet in the mid-1950s, was due to fatigue
around the window rivets caused by repeated cabin air compression.
It is possible that rapidly repeated stressing can induce some heat that
might hasten the failure, but this is nto an intrinsic aspect of resonance
or vibration (there seems to be a tendency to confuse vibration and
resonance here, but it seems mostly harmless to the argument).
HATUNEN
In article <bob_erck-230...@et212pc113.et.anl.gov>,
Robert Erck <bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov> wrote:
[...]
>Hannon's America of the future: where little kids are sat in enormous
>swingsets, and are employed to generate power using the resonance
>principle during playtime. :-)
>
>Actually, what I think Hannon is trying to say is that it taks a lot less
>instantaneously applied *force* to break a *physical object* apart, if the
>physical object is undergoing normal-mode vibrations.
There is, of course, no such real-world thing as an "instantaneously applied
force".
When already in a vibratory mode an object is already being stressed. If a
little more input causes failure, it simply means that the cyclic stresses
were already almost at failure. The energy of a vibrating object is stored
as a combination of potential and kinetic energy, with maximum kinetic
energy as it passes thorught he neutral point, and maximum potential energy
at the end when it is instantaneously stationary. Failure occurs when the
potential energy exceeds the binding energy.
It's a bit more complicated for molecular or electron binding energies, but
in general, that's the idea. For these we have to get into discussign where
the energy really is (it's in the field).
But it is energy input that causes failure, not force, except, of course,
that force x distance = energy.
Chris Pollard
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: >
: > Hannon's America of the future: where little kids are sat in enormous
: > swingsets, and are employed to generate power using the resonance
: > principle during playtime. :-)
: Any part, such as an A-frame, which operates in an environment where its
: resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
: MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
: frequency is never hit. THIS ISN"T CONJECTURE - IT IS FACT, despite the
: fact that the total energy absorbed by the resonant A-frame could easily
: be only ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH or much less of what the non-resonant A-frame
: absorbs, without breaking. A bearing that hits resonance may only last
: minutes, while without hitting resonance, could last for YEARS, enduring
: thousands of times the energy which failed the other resonant bearing in
: minutes.
: OHannon
So you don't understand how a swing works? It's nothing to do with
resonance of an A frame if that's what you are trying to say.
Michael Hannon
> : minutes, while without hitting resonance, could last for YEARS, enduring
> : thousands of times the energy which failed the other resonant bearing in
> : minutes.
>
> energy transfer. But it's still just transfer. The energy has to come from
> somewhere.
>
> You knew that, of course.
>
> Ian
No kidding, Mr. Wizard.
Who ever said that it didn't.
The question is not where it comes from, but how much is required to do
it, and resonant destruction is the most economical, as just stated in
your quote from me.
If it takes 1/100,0000th of the transferred energy to resonate a part to
failure as it does to non-resonantly bring it to failure, what's the
importance of the point of discussing where it came from?
OHannon
Michael Hannon
HATUNEN wrote:
>
> In article <bob_erck-230...@et212pc113.et.anl.gov>,
> Robert Erck <bob_...@qmgate.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >swingsets, and are employed to generate power using the resonance
> >principle during playtime. :-)
> >
> >instantaneously applied *force* to break a *physical object* apart, if the
> >physical object is undergoing normal-mode vibrations.
>
> There is, of course, no such real-world thing as an "instantaneously applied
> force".
>
> When already in a vibratory mode an object is already being stressed. If a
> little more input causes failure, it simply means that the cyclic stresses
> were already almost at failure. The energy of a vibrating object is stored
> as a combination of potential and kinetic energy, with maximum kinetic
> energy as it passes thorught he neutral point, and maximum potential energy
> at the end when it is instantaneously stationary. Failure occurs when the
> potential energy exceeds the binding energy.
And when the binding energy is at its minimum as opposed to vibratory
stresses, and it varies in a water molecule to the point of maximum
weakness when the shape of the molecule becomes distorted beyond a
certain point. According to Keely, during such vibration, stretching and
compression take place, and if the stretched length exceeds the width by
more than 2/1, the binding energy is at its minimum, and can no longer
hold the molecule together. Puharich has a similar description in his
patent, describing distorted, misshapen molecules, where no only the
binding energy, but the binding angles of that energy, become critical.
Michael Hannon
> : > swingsets, and are employed to generate power using the resonance
> : > principle during playtime. :-)
>
> : resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
> : MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
> : frequency is never hit. THIS ISN"T CONJECTURE - IT IS FACT, despite the
> : fact that the total energy absorbed by the resonant A-frame could easily
> : be only ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH or much less of what the non-resonant A-frame
> : minutes, while without hitting resonance, could last for YEARS, enduring
> : thousands of times the energy which failed the other resonant bearing in
> : minutes.
> So you don't understand how a swing works? It's nothing to do with
> resonance of an A frame if that's what you are trying to say.
Well, well, well - another dim bulb, Chris Pollard. Who dragged you over
here, Mr. Pollard - one of the other morons here who can't handle trying
to figure out vibratory physics? Quite an astute observation - and
totally consistent with the dim-witted posts I've seen from you earlier
in other NG's.
Let's hear it for yet more "real monkey science" from Chris, Mr. Monkey,
Pollard. Take that hand away from your butt, Chrissy, I already know
what you're about to do - sling a monkey turd.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
HATUNEN wrote:
>
> In article <33AEDE...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Robert Erck wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> swingsets, and are employed to generate power using the resonance
> >> principle during playtime. :-)
> >>
> >> instantaneously applied *force* to break a *physical object* apart, if the
> >> physical object is undergoing normal-mode vibrations.
> >
> >resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
> >MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
> >frequency is never hit. THIS ISN"T CONJECTURE - IT IS FACT, despite the
> >fact that the total energy absorbed by the resonant A-frame could easily
> >be only ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH or much less of what the non-resonant A-frame
> >absorbs, without breaking. A bearing that hits resonance may only last
> >minutes, while without hitting resonance, could last for YEARS, enduring
> >thousands of times the energy which failed the other resonant bearing in
> >minutes.
> >OHannon
>
Absolute nonsense.
OHannon
> It does depend on repeated
> stressing of the material, but periodicity is not a factor, except to the
> extent that it creates more cyles of stressing in a given time frame than
> might occur under other modes. For instance, the failures of the first
> commercial jetliners, the British Comet in the mid-1950s, was due to fatigue
> around the window rivets caused by repeated cabin air compression.
>
> It is possible that rapidly repeated stressing can induce some heat that
> might hasten the failure, but this is nto an intrinsic aspect of resonance
> or vibration (there seems to be a tendency to confuse vibration and
> resonance here, but it seems mostly harmless to the argument).
>
Michael Hannon
Harry CONover (also known as the cockroach - El Cucaracho)- the first
recipient of 1997 Gold-Plated AARSE Award for Meritorious
Accomplishment, in recogniton or outstanding achievement in the
Retardation of Scientific and Technical progress through cumulative
efforts to delay, divert, discredit, obstruct, impead, and/or interfere
with the work of scientists and engineers everywhere.
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Harry H Conover wrote:
> : >
> : > Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : > :
> : > : Any part, such as an A-frame, which operates in an environment where its
> : > : resonant frequency is hit, by whatever means, will fail from fatigue
> : > : MUCH SOONER than a part of the same size and strength whose resonant
> : > : frequency is never hit.
> : >
> : > What is the resonant frequency of a water molecule?
> : >
> : > What is the excitation frequency provide by Meyer's gizmo?
> : >
> : Which frequency - the cell operates on pulse width modulation. The pulse
> : width is of one frequency,
>
> Sorry Michael, pulse width is in time interval units, not frequency
> units. You score again.
Really?
Why, you're just the consummate authority figure, aren't you, Harry.
>
> : while the modulation frequency is at a lower
> : one. My understanding from what H2OPWRD has given, and the patent, is
> : that the pulse width is in the 6MHz area
>
> Guess you've proved me a moron again Michael. I don't even know what
> a pulse width of 6MHz is, but do you? I know what a pulse width of
> 10-Milliseconds is, or 10-Microseconds, but certainly not 6-MHz.
> MHz is mega-Hertz, a unit of frequency (as in resonant frequency)
> but it is not, by any means, a unit or measure of pulse width.
>
Is that right.
You are a total egotistic moron.
What is the pulse width of the positive half of a single 6MHz square
wave, Harry?
> Bzzzp! You score again.
The first recipient of the Gold-Plated AARSE Award.
>
> : (but a pulse has high harmonic
> : content, so the actual harmonics could be octaves above that) while the
> : modulation frequency is about 50 khz, but in groups, at a lower
> : frequency which is dependent on current flow - when it starts to flow,
> : the pulse train is stopped, because the water is already breaking down,
> : which is what begins to allow the increased current to flow in the first
> : place, because its dielectric strength has been destroyed by the
> : resonant high voltage, low-current pulse train. It's not a simple
> : waveform, but not that difficult to crudely produce by the gating of the
> : 6MHz width pulse.
>
> I read the silly patent, it's just a simple wave train that repeats at
> a constant frequency.
>
> Perhaps an introductory knowledge of the Fourier Transform would help
> you with your hand waving expanation, but in the case of the Meyer
> gizmo, even that powerful tool probably wouldn't help much.
>
Really? Perhaps a few years in group therapy might allow you to begin
thinking that you're not the Napoleon of the NG.
> :
> : > Which comes closer to the resonant frequency of a water
> : > molecule, Meyer's gizmo or an ordinary microwave oven?
> : >
> :
> : I'm dealing with a neanderthal.
>
> Fortunatly, I'm only dealing with a guy that just lost a $10 bet.
> Better luck next time.
>
What bet? A bet has to have two players, Mr. CONover,
and betting with a sleaze like yourself is not exactly worth my while,
or even consideration. So, you can go play pretend with yourself for
another few hours, while the rest of the world goes about figuring out
how to overcome the hindrance sleazeballs like you are placing on their
futures.
> :
> : > If the answer is a microwave oven, wouldn't I be far better
> : > off to place an electrolysis cell into a microwave oven, than
> : > to use the Meyer gizmo?
> : >
> : A real dinosaur.
>
> Sorry, you don't get to lose $20 with repeated ad hominem attacks.
> Sadly, my challenge was only for $10, else I could have really
> taken you to the cleaners! :-)
>
The only cleaners required here are for you, and your brand of sleaze,
which may have gotten you promoted, but has nothing to do with the
science of real people who want to contribute to this world.
You make attacks on people without having ANY BACKGROUND WHATSOEVER
in the field they are working. What kind of science do you call that?
You are the worst kind of fraud, Mr. CONover - peddling yourself as a
legitimate, objective, caring man of science, when you will stoop to any
lowness in order to prevent the advance of new ideas in this NG.
Lose a bet with you?
I wouldn't bet a dog's hair with a sleaze like you.
> : Try it, Harry - put a Meyer cell in a microwave.
> : Are you on pills?
>
> Well, not a Meyer's gizmo, but an electrolysis cell in a microwave is
> a piece of cake for anyone with even a small amount of electronics
> background. You simply isolate the d.c. feed to the cell from the
> microwave's r.f. by employing some r.f. isolation in the form of
> a decoupling device (likely, a simple choke or inductance will do
> nicely).
>
> It's not only possible, it's easy. See there Michael, you could
> have lost another ten spot.
>
> :
> : > See if you can answer these without attacking anyone or changing
> : > the subject. I'll bet $10 you can't respond OR can't respond
> : > without an ad hominem attack. Am I on?
> : >
> : > Harry C.
> :
> : Save your money, Harry - you've insulted, defamed, discredited without
> : any foundation, and attacked, too many innocent people already to get
> : off so easy.
>
> Ah, Michael! You're just ticked because I won the bet so easily.
> Hell man, it's no contest. I won't even try to collect from you
> on the bet.
>
Uhuh.
> :
I'm sure.
>
Uhuh.
> So far as I can tell, you've now soundly flamed and mouthed off at
> everyone on this newsgroup that has ever made an effort to point you in
> the direction of knowledge, rational logic and truth.
>
> You've totally rejected all of the advice, guidance, and knowledge
> extended to you by the many informed and experienced professionals that
Rejected WHAT?
Advice? Guidance? From you, and the other debunkers here?
You mean insults, descrediting without any background, defamation,
and joke-cracking, don't you? You have never provided me
(amd others who have come here) with one iota of honest audience, thought,
help, or counsel. You are nothing but a fraud and BS peddler
as far as I can see, and you still have provided no substantial, clear
analysis of the means and method of a homopolar generator, because
you have none. None of you do.
> frequent this newsgroup. The resulting attitude and behavior that you've
> exhibited here doesn't make me angry -- it saddens me.
>
> Trust me that any follow-ups I may subsequently make to your posts will
> be intended for the benefit of others than yourself.
>
Trust you? You've got to be kidding.
> Harry C.
Harry CONover, without doubt the biggest horse's ass in this NG.
OHannon
H2OPWRD
In article <33B028...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> writes:
To Harry CONover:
>Rejected WHAT?
>Advice? Guidance? From you, and the other debunkers here?
>You mean insults, descrediting without any background, defamation,
>and joke-cracking, don't you? You have never provided me
>(amd others who have come here) with one iota of honest audience,
thought,
>help, or counsel. You are nothing but a fraud and BS peddler
>as far as I can see, and you still have provided no substantial, clear
>analysis of the means and method of a homopolar generator, because
>you have none. None of you do.
>
on a broken leg.
Regards,
JW
DaveHatunen
In article <33B019...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I said:
>> There is, of course, no such real-world thing as an "instantaneously applied
>> force".
>>
>> When already in a vibratory mode an object is already being stressed. If a
>> little more input causes failure, it simply means that the cyclic stresses
>> were already almost at failure. The energy of a vibrating object is stored
>> as a combination of potential and kinetic energy, with maximum kinetic
>> energy as it passes thorught he neutral point, and maximum potential energy
>> at the end when it is instantaneously stationary. Failure occurs when the
>> potential energy exceeds the binding energy.
>
>And when the binding energy is at its minimum as opposed to vibratory
>stresses, and it varies in a water molecule to the point of maximum
>weakness when the shape of the molecule becomes distorted beyond a
>certain point. According to Keely, during such vibration, stretching and
>compression take place, and if the stretched length exceeds the width by
>more than 2/1, the binding energy is at its minimum, and can no longer
>hold the molecule together. Puharich has a similar description in his
>patent, describing distorted, misshapen molecules, where no only the
>binding energy, but the binding angles of that energy, become critical.
None of which contradicts anything I said.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************
DaveHatunen
In article <33B01C...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>HATUNEN wrote:
[...]
>> Fatigue has nothing to do with resonance.
>
>Absolute nonsense.
>
>OHannon
ROTFL!
>> It does depend on repeated
>> stressing of the material, but periodicity is not a factor, except to the
>> extent that it creates more cyles of stressing in a given time frame than
>> might occur under other modes. For instance, the failures of the first
>> commercial jetliners, the British Comet in the mid-1950s, was due to fatigue
>> around the window rivets caused by repeated cabin air compression.
>>
>> It is possible that rapidly repeated stressing can induce some heat that
>> might hasten the failure, but this is nto an intrinsic aspect of resonance
>> or vibration (there seems to be a tendency to confuse vibration and
>> resonance here, but it seems mostly harmless to the argument).
At first I thought that perhaps you were a clever expert clowning
around, the way it takes a skilled diver to look as clumsy as the clown
routines the clown diver does. But it is now apparent you haven't the
foggiest idea what you're talking about. And you cite others without
having the foggiest idea what they are talking about.
Ian Johnston
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: If it takes 1/100,0000th of the transferred energy to resonate a part to
: failure as it does to non-resonantly bring it to failure, what's the
: importance of the point of discussing where it came from?
There would be no point in discussing it. But it takes just as much energy
to cause failure at resonance as at any other frequency. You may disperse
rather less into the surroundings, but the amount of energy going into
the failed part will be exactly the same.
Ian
Harry H Conover
Oh my Gawd, Hannon has gone ballistic!
Harry C.
DaveHatunen
In article <33B028...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[Gratuitous stuff deleted]
>Harry H Conover wrote:
>>
>> Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>>
[...]
>> : > What is the excitation frequency provide by Meyer's gizmo?
>> : >
>> : Which frequency - the cell operates on pulse width modulation. The pulse
>> : width is of one frequency,
>>
>> Sorry Michael, pulse width is in time interval units, not frequency
>> units. You score again.
>
>Really?
>Why, you're just the consummate authority figure, aren't you, Harry.
>
>>
>> : while the modulation frequency is at a lower
>> : one. My understanding from what H2OPWRD has given, and the patent, is
>> : that the pulse width is in the 6MHz area
>>
>> Guess you've proved me a moron again Michael. I don't even know what
>> a pulse width of 6MHz is, but do you? I know what a pulse width of
>> 10-Milliseconds is, or 10-Microseconds, but certainly not 6-MHz.
>> MHz is mega-Hertz, a unit of frequency (as in resonant frequency)
>> but it is not, by any means, a unit or measure of pulse width.
>>
>
>Is that right.
>You are a total egotistic moron.
>What is the pulse width of the positive half of a single 6MHz square
>wave, Harry?
For a square wave it would be be 83.33 nanoseconds - a time
measurement. It would not be 1 hz, or even 0.5 hz. It could be a
half-cycle. It could be pi radians or 180 degrees.
(Rue the day they did away with cycles per second -- which made sense
-- with hertz -- which don't. Engineering joke: the cycle is now called
an Avis, because it's a hertz-second.)
[...]
Chris Pollard
Harry H Conover (con...@tiac.net) wrote:
: Oh my Gawd, Hannon has gone ballistic!
: Harry C.
Again - and apparently hasn't bothered to read even one book on simple
physics since last time. Funny how these people who say they want to
learn something get so rude and obnoxious when you try and give them some
free information. I'm not sure how calling people names will ever resolve
the argument or convince anyone of their case except via the conspiracy
theory.
And yes as last time I will not continue the frenzy - just hoped that
maybe he had become more civil.
Michael Hannon
DaveHatunen wrote:
>
> In article <33B028...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [Gratuitous stuff deleted]
>
>
> >> : > What is the excitation frequency provide by Meyer's gizmo?
> >> : >
> >> : Which frequency - the cell operates on pulse width modulation. The pulse
> >> : width is of one frequency,
> >>
> >> Sorry Michael, pulse width is in time interval units, not frequency
> >> units. You score again.
> >
> >Really?
> >Why, you're just the consummate authority figure, aren't you, Harry.
> >
> >>
> >> : while the modulation frequency is at a lower
> >> : one. My understanding from what H2OPWRD has given, and the patent, is
> >> : that the pulse width is in the 6MHz area
> >>
> >> Guess you've proved me a moron again Michael. I don't even know what
> >> a pulse width of 6MHz is, but do you? I know what a pulse width of
> >> 10-Milliseconds is, or 10-Microseconds, but certainly not 6-MHz.
> >> MHz is mega-Hertz, a unit of frequency (as in resonant frequency)
> >> but it is not, by any means, a unit or measure of pulse width.
> >>
> >
> >Is that right.
> >You are a total egotistic moron.
> >What is the pulse width of the positive half of a single 6MHz square
> >wave, Harry?
>
> measurement. It would not be 1 hz, or even 0.5 hz. It could be a
> half-cycle. It could be pi radians or 180 degrees.
I know that Dave. But Meyer discusses such intervals in their frequency
counterpart, and as I was using his own statements as given to, and by,
JW, I used it. As you can see, I never said it was 1 hz, or 0.5hz, but
the positive half of a single 6MHz square wave, and I have to tell you
that I designed an electronic textile loom controller using just such a
single gated pulse (positive half of a square wave) of an 8Mhz clock
frequency, to trigger scr's and particular solenoids in a control head.
There's nothing <that> obtuse about it, except perhaps for certain anal
retentives.(I'm not implying you in that analogy)
>
> (Rue the day they did away with cycles per second -- which made sense
> -- with hertz -- which don't. Engineering joke: the cycle is now called
> an Avis, because it's a hertz-second.)
I share those sentiments, and still find myself saying "cps," as though
it's a taboo at the electronics shop, and tro tell you the truth, I
still use it myself in thought.
OHannon
Ian Johnston
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: HATUNEN wrote:
: > Fatigue has nothing to do with resonance.
: Absolute nonsense.
You're way, way out of your depth, yet again. You are now telling us that
the last hundred years of materials science have been quite misguided. I
doubt that it's even worth arguing with you, but in case you feel inclined
to take it up:
1) Do you agree with Griffiths crack theory? If not, why not? What evidence
can you produce to back up your rejection?
2) What mechanisms do you think best describe fatigue in a) brittle and
b) ductile materials?
3) Where in these mechanisms do you see a frequency dependence?
Ian
Michael Hannon
More nonsense.
If you seriously believe that resonance has nothing to do with fatigue,
you need more than study in vibratory physics - you need to seek help,
Mr. Johnston - serious help.
Take the A-frame off the right front of your car, find its resonant
frequency, apply or remove weight to the A-frame so that it vibrates at
that resonant frequency constantly as you are driving that car. Leave it
there, and pay no attention to it, and drive normally, and as fast and
hard as you please, Mr. Johnston.
Please.
Just forget it's there, and drive as you please.
Please, Mr. Johnston - if not for me, at least for those who have died
from resonant fatigue part failures. Do it to one of your front wheel
bearings while you're at it.
Please, Mr. Johnston.
What is magnetism, Mr. Johnston?
What elicits the flow of electricity in a conductor in the presence
of it?
This guy teaches students at Oxford University?
Oh, boy.
OHannon
David Hatunen
In article <33B327...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...]
>More nonsense.
>If you seriously believe that resonance has nothing to do with fatigue,
>you need more than study in vibratory physics - you need to seek help,
>Mr. Johnston - serious help.
>
>Take the A-frame off the right front of your car, find its resonant
>frequency, apply or remove weight to the A-frame so that it vibrates at
>that resonant frequency constantly as you are driving that car. Leave it
>there, and pay no attention to it, and drive normally, and as fast and
>hard as you please, Mr. Johnston.
>Please.
>Just forget it's there, and drive as you please.
>Please, Mr. Johnston - if not for me, at least for those who have died
>from resonant fatigue part failures. Do it to one of your front wheel
>bearings while you're at it.
>Please, Mr. Johnston.
No one has said that resonant or time-periodic vibratory motion won't induce
fatigue. These obviously cause the stresses which will do so. What is being
said is that these are a subset of the class of "back-and-forth" stresses
that will induce fatigue. While they may be sufficient, they are not
necessary.
>What is magnetism, Mr. Johnston?
>
>What elicits the flow of electricity in a conductor in the presence
>of it?
It isn't -- necessarily -- resonance or vibration, although it can be.
Michael Hannon
David Hatunen wrote:
>
> In article <33B327...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >More nonsense.
> >If you seriously believe that resonance has nothing to do with fatigue,
> >you need more than study in vibratory physics - you need to seek help,
> >Mr. Johnston - serious help.
> >
> >Take the A-frame off the right front of your car, find its resonant
> >frequency, apply or remove weight to the A-frame so that it vibrates at
> >that resonant frequency constantly as you are driving that car. Leave it
> >there, and pay no attention to it, and drive normally, and as fast and
> >hard as you please, Mr. Johnston.
> >Please.
> >Just forget it's there, and drive as you please.
> >Please, Mr. Johnston - if not for me, at least for those who have died
> >from resonant fatigue part failures. Do it to one of your front wheel
> >bearings while you're at it.
> >Please, Mr. Johnston.
>
> No one has said that resonant or time-periodic vibratory motion won't induce
> fatigue.
Actually, David, the statement, as quoted directly from the post Mr.
Johnston is railingly defending,
": > Fatigue has nothing to do with resonance."
says exactly that. Using set theory, the subset "resonant fatigue" is
inexorably inbedded in the "fatigue" set. How can a subset of fatigue
have nothing to do with the set it resides in?
>These obviously cause the stresses which will do so. What is being
> said is that these are a subset of the class of "back-and-forth" stresses
> that will induce fatigue. While they may be sufficient, they are not
> necessary.
That's a given, David. Things break without pronounced resonance, but
they break much more easily when exposed to it, and it would be very
difficult to show an example of part fatigue in which NO resonant
fatigue took place, because of the harmonic content stresses of not only
the geometry of the part, but the vibrational and other forces imposed
on a part. There are so many angles, velocities, densities,
reverberations, additive and subtractive amplitude modulated synthesis
processes going on in virtually anything under stress, that it would
take an advanced computer and sensor analysis to consider them all, even
in a steel ball bearing, especially when scalar forces are taken into
consideration. It is actually mind-boggling. Can you produce a force
that has no harmonic content, incapable of finding any resonance in a
part when applied? The very second that a single molecule of a metal
object begins to stretch, vibrational changes echo through the object,
and the more stress it absorbs, the greater the vibrational content.
>
> >What is magnetism, Mr. Johnston?
> >
> >What elicits the flow of electricity in a conductor in the presence
> >of it?
>
> It isn't -- necessarily -- resonance or vibration, although it can be.
>
What - magnetism? NO ONE knows what magnetism really is - there are only
theories about it and how electricitry is elicited in its presence.
OHannon
DNelson801
What is a scalar wave as described by Tesla? How is it different from
standard electromagnetic waves? Thanks for the help.
Dennis Nelson