Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Physics of Efficient Water Splitting::Stan's secrets exposed!
3 views
Skip to first unread message
knews4...@yahoo.com
May 6, 2012, 5:53:10 AM5/6/12
to
From:
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1299
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:24 am Post subject: The Physics of
Efficient Water Splitting::Stan's secrets exp
by: HMS-776
This post and the things described in it are not up for debate.
Everything explained in this post is physics law.
Voltage is defined as an electric potential (charge) at a point in
space.
Voltage can be of a positive charge, defined as a lack of electrons
Or a negative charge, defined as an excess of electrons
Voltage is the driving force that causes the movement of electrons
(current flow)
In Physics we know that like charges repel, and opposite charges
attract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential
http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Charge.html
The atom consists of two charged parts, the Proton which carries a
positive charge, and the electron which carries a negative charge. In
most atoms and molecules there is an equal number of each, meaning
that they are in stable state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
The combination of opposite charges attract each other to hold atoms
and molecules together. In the water molecule the charge that holds
the atoms together is known as a covalent bond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
Looking at the water molecule:
If you look at the water molecule, you'll quickly find the way that
it is arranged the atoms have seperate charges, The Hydrogen atoms
have a positive charge and the oxygen atoms carries a negative
charge.
http://www.shorstmeyer.com/msj/geo130/water/water.html
Now we know that voltage is an electrical attraction force, which can
cause current (electrons) to flow by moving them from one atom to
another.
We know that there are two charges, Positive and negative. A positive
charge being defined as a lack of electrons. A negative charge being
defined as an excess of electrons.
We also know in physics everything must reach a stable state, so when
a difference in potential exists current flows until there is no
difference in potential (all atoms reach a stable state).
So, if we place the water molecule between two plates charged with
opposite voltages, we know that the electrons spinning around the atom
will all be attracted toward the positive plate, and the proton will
be attracted toward the negative plate (opposites attract) thus
slowing down the orbital movement of the atom(s), the higher the
charges become the further the atom will be slowed down and pulled
apart, until eventually the molecule splits into it's component
atoms.
This is how common electrolysis works.
No, to go a little deeper. If we have a wire, and each side of that
wire has an equal, but opposite charge, current will begin to flow.
The moving electrons (current flow) will fill in voids (areas with
missing electrons) at one side of the circuit. This will cause many
previously positive charges to combine with electrons (negative
charges) to reach a stable state, cancelling out there charge, meaning
that voltage potential will decrease.
In common electrolysis the water has an electrolyte added to make the
water more conductive (current flows easier). This causes an excessive
current flow, which decreases the voltage potential (as described
above). Electrolysis has been proven to be most efficient at less than
2 volts.
"A cell operating at
the theoretical voltage of 1.23 volts is 100 percent efficient. The
amount of voltage above 1.23 required to operate the cell is
wasted. The objective, then, is to make a cell that will operate
as close to this voltage as possible."
http://www.billingsenergy.com/Research/HWV-Chapter_09.PDF
see page 6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
So with electrolysis the voltage with the highest efficiency is only
1.23 Volts. As we know voltage is an electrical attraction force, 1.23
Volts is not much.
If we were able to increase the voltage, and restrict current flow we
could break the current model of 1.23 volts peak potential by hundreds
or even thousands of percent more! That is exactly what Stan did.
To make his method the most efficient he used what is known as a
resonant charging choke circuit. The circuit is a LC circuit which can
be operated at resonance for maximum efficiency.
In an LC circuit resonance is when the capacitive reactance and the
inductive reactance cancel each other out, meaning that the circuit
can operate at it's maximum amplitude, in this case amplitude is
referring to voltage while amp flow is restricted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html
"A word of caution is in order with series LC resonant circuits:
because of the high currents which may be present in a series LC
circuit at resonance, it is possible to produce dangerously high
voltage drops across the capacitor and the inductor"
To increase efficiency even more Stan added inductors to the circuit,
the inductors build up a magnetic field when current is flowing
through them, and the field collapses when current stops causing an
extra pulse when a blocking diode is used.
In the case of splitting water, it only makes sense that the longer
the voltage was applied to the water the more water would be split. So
when Stan added the inductors to the circuit he did them for that
exact reason. A secondary (high voltage transformer/inductor) and the
water capacitor had a large off time, but by adding inductors he can
do the following:
In the resonant charging choke circuit, the circuit contains 3
inductors, one which is the secondary of the transformer and the other
two are used to do the following:
When a magnetic field is created (by the transformer primary) and
collapses it creates a pulse through the secondary winding which goes
through the chokes and creates a magnetic field around them, as the
magnetic field collapses around the chokes another pulse is created.
As Stan States in patent # 4,936,961: talking about the Resonant
Charging Choke circuit:
"In this manner a continuous voltage is produced across the capacitor
plates…”
So there you see. By restricting current the voltage potential
(attraction force) can be brought much higher. To increase the
efficiency even more the circuit was operated at resonance, and
inductors were added to prevent the capacitor from discharging, giving
it a constant voltage.
This is where Stan hit some difficult challenges in his work, and
this is where most forums and individuals are stuck. Resonance.
You have to realize that with water as the dielectric resonance will
not stay the same for any length of time. In fact it changes
constantly. Changing temperature, water splitting in the cell creating
bubbles between the plates, Water being split and leaving behind it’s
contaminants in the WFC and a few other factors cause the problem of
keeping resonance for any amount of time.
So Stan went on to develop the PLL circuit, a circuit which
automatically detects resonance and continuously scans signals as
resonance changes to keep the circuit as close to resonance as
possible.
A PLL circuit is commonly known in electronics as a Phase lock Loop,
it is made for matching frequencies and doing many more things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-locked_loop
http://scopeboy.com/tesla/drsstc/index.html
Example of PLL use for resonance in a tesla coil
After much time the circuits were made to work, but were scrapped for
his newest invention. The invention I call the MAGNETRON WFC.
We have all seen the picture of Stan Meyers WFC, the one that
contains the delrin housing, the magnet, ETC.
Here I will discuss this type of the WFC, I am not the first one to
point this out as it has been discussed by many others.
First, looking at a magnetron you should see 3 things about this WFC
that jump out at you:
1. The SS tube
2. The Magnet
3. The Vanes
In this WFC the SS tube (cathode) is given a high voltage negative
charge. This charge being negative produces a repelling force on the
surrounding electrons and the electrons are pushed away from the
cathode. The magnetic field produced by the permanent magnet has an
effect on the electrons and causes them to move spirally, outward
from
the cathode.
As the electrons move past the vanes (Anode Vanes) a
voltage is induced into the vanes that is equal to the cathode
voltage. The vanes being connected to each other form tiny LC
resonant
circuits as they not only have a current flowing through them which
forms an inductor but they have space between them which forms a
capacitor.
Because of the movement of the electrons which also carry a
magnetic field voltages are induced into the anode vanes. It is the
opposite voltages in the anode vanes that split the water molecules.
The resonant frequency is pumped into the cavities and no resonant
scanning locking circuit (PLL) is needed.
It should be noted that as the anode vanes are small they form very
small LC circuits which resonate at high frequencies which may
operate in the MICROWAVE range!
http://www.upv.es/gcm/docente/magnetron.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/magnetron.html
http://www.tufts.edu/as/tampl/en43/lecture_notes/ch7.html
http://www.cpii.com/docs/related/2/Mag%20tech%20art.pdf
The Websites above give a very good explanation of how Stan’s
magnetron WFC works.
Note that meyers setup the anode vanes were of a different
configuration that common magnetrons use.
So now we should know how 2 versions of the WFC work:
1. SS tube type
2. Magnetron type
The SS tube type split the water molecules using high voltage of
opposite polarity pulsed at resonant frequencies which are
controlled
by the resonant scanning/locking (PLL) circuit.
The Magnetron type split the water molecules using high voltage of
opposite polarity at resonant frequencies which are “pumped”
into the anode vanes and DO NOT require a resonant scanning/locking
circuit.
The only problem with the magnetron circuit is that, as each tiny LC
circuit only had one inductance the voltage was not constant. And as
we know when there are voltage off times between pulses we loose
efficiency. There was also the problem of hydrogen under pressure, as
we know hydrogen is extremely flammable, and when under pressure there
could be leaks, explosions etc.
Now on to the final, and best invention! The INJECTORS.
Looking at the injectors it seems very complex, hard to understand.
After all there is only one wire going to them from the distributor.
How could one wire (one voltage) split the water molecule when it
takes both positive and negative voltage to do that.
In the Tech Brief Stan claims a negative voltage is formed in the
injector due to "electron bunching or clustering.''
The Negative voltage is "induced" inside the injector. The formation
of this charge is known in physics as ELECTROSTATIC INDUCTION!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_induction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ36EtABLAk&feature=PlayList&p=8F65598...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics
Electrostatic induction is basically when one charged object charges
another nearby object to an opposite charge. This is because of the
physics law, opposites attract, like charges repel.
If you have an object which has a high positive charge (lack of
electrons) and you put it toward another object the positive charge
will attract electrons (negative charge) toward it, creating a
negative charge on the surface closest to the positive charged object,
while at the same time the positive charged object will repel the
positive charges on the other object away from it.
So you see, the Injectors work to split the water molecule using high
voltage of opposite charge. In the Tech Brief Stan claims the WFC can
be made as small as a Spark Plug.
He makes all three inventions seem like they are the same device, but
really as you’ve read you can see they are different. The part that is
the same is the fact that they all use HIGH VOLTAGE OF OPPOSITE
POLARITY while restricting amp flow “influxing” to split the water
molecule.
Now to make the resonance changes smaller in the Injectors, Stan used
an electrostatic filter to attract and trap contaminants in the water,
increasing the dielectric value of the dielectric, which increased the
capacitance, which reduced the resonant frequency and also made the
changes in resonance smaller.
Hope you enjoyed the explanation.
Please note that nothing written here is “Theory”. Everything here
has been proven and is common physics law, See references for more
understanding and proof of the simplicity Stan Meyers work. The
simplicity of his work is one reason why he made everything so
complicated and hard to understand, to protect it from being stolen.
If the common man understood the simplicity of creating and using
energy there would be no such thing as oil monopolies, pollution, and
carbon taxes! Our biggest cities would have the cleanest air, there
would be no third world countries, and our entire world would thrive
in it’s existence.
Last edited by HMS-776 on Tue May 12, 2009 6:17 am; edited 12 times in
total
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1299
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:24 am Post subject: The Physics of
Efficient Water Splitting::Stan's secrets exp
by: HMS-776
This post and the things described in it are not up for debate.
Everything explained in this post is physics law.
Voltage is defined as an electric potential (charge) at a point in
space.
Voltage can be of a positive charge, defined as a lack of electrons
Or a negative charge, defined as an excess of electrons
Voltage is the driving force that causes the movement of electrons
(current flow)
In Physics we know that like charges repel, and opposite charges
attract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential
http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Charge.html
The atom consists of two charged parts, the Proton which carries a
positive charge, and the electron which carries a negative charge. In
most atoms and molecules there is an equal number of each, meaning
that they are in stable state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
The combination of opposite charges attract each other to hold atoms
and molecules together. In the water molecule the charge that holds
the atoms together is known as a covalent bond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
Looking at the water molecule:
If you look at the water molecule, you'll quickly find the way that
it is arranged the atoms have seperate charges, The Hydrogen atoms
have a positive charge and the oxygen atoms carries a negative
charge.
http://www.shorstmeyer.com/msj/geo130/water/water.html
Now we know that voltage is an electrical attraction force, which can
cause current (electrons) to flow by moving them from one atom to
another.
We know that there are two charges, Positive and negative. A positive
charge being defined as a lack of electrons. A negative charge being
defined as an excess of electrons.
We also know in physics everything must reach a stable state, so when
a difference in potential exists current flows until there is no
difference in potential (all atoms reach a stable state).
So, if we place the water molecule between two plates charged with
opposite voltages, we know that the electrons spinning around the atom
will all be attracted toward the positive plate, and the proton will
be attracted toward the negative plate (opposites attract) thus
slowing down the orbital movement of the atom(s), the higher the
charges become the further the atom will be slowed down and pulled
apart, until eventually the molecule splits into it's component
atoms.
This is how common electrolysis works.
No, to go a little deeper. If we have a wire, and each side of that
wire has an equal, but opposite charge, current will begin to flow.
The moving electrons (current flow) will fill in voids (areas with
missing electrons) at one side of the circuit. This will cause many
previously positive charges to combine with electrons (negative
charges) to reach a stable state, cancelling out there charge, meaning
that voltage potential will decrease.
In common electrolysis the water has an electrolyte added to make the
water more conductive (current flows easier). This causes an excessive
current flow, which decreases the voltage potential (as described
above). Electrolysis has been proven to be most efficient at less than
2 volts.
"A cell operating at
the theoretical voltage of 1.23 volts is 100 percent efficient. The
amount of voltage above 1.23 required to operate the cell is
wasted. The objective, then, is to make a cell that will operate
as close to this voltage as possible."
http://www.billingsenergy.com/Research/HWV-Chapter_09.PDF
see page 6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
So with electrolysis the voltage with the highest efficiency is only
1.23 Volts. As we know voltage is an electrical attraction force, 1.23
Volts is not much.
If we were able to increase the voltage, and restrict current flow we
could break the current model of 1.23 volts peak potential by hundreds
or even thousands of percent more! That is exactly what Stan did.
To make his method the most efficient he used what is known as a
resonant charging choke circuit. The circuit is a LC circuit which can
be operated at resonance for maximum efficiency.
In an LC circuit resonance is when the capacitive reactance and the
inductive reactance cancel each other out, meaning that the circuit
can operate at it's maximum amplitude, in this case amplitude is
referring to voltage while amp flow is restricted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html
"A word of caution is in order with series LC resonant circuits:
because of the high currents which may be present in a series LC
circuit at resonance, it is possible to produce dangerously high
voltage drops across the capacitor and the inductor"
To increase efficiency even more Stan added inductors to the circuit,
the inductors build up a magnetic field when current is flowing
through them, and the field collapses when current stops causing an
extra pulse when a blocking diode is used.
In the case of splitting water, it only makes sense that the longer
the voltage was applied to the water the more water would be split. So
when Stan added the inductors to the circuit he did them for that
exact reason. A secondary (high voltage transformer/inductor) and the
water capacitor had a large off time, but by adding inductors he can
do the following:
In the resonant charging choke circuit, the circuit contains 3
inductors, one which is the secondary of the transformer and the other
two are used to do the following:
When a magnetic field is created (by the transformer primary) and
collapses it creates a pulse through the secondary winding which goes
through the chokes and creates a magnetic field around them, as the
magnetic field collapses around the chokes another pulse is created.
As Stan States in patent # 4,936,961: talking about the Resonant
Charging Choke circuit:
"In this manner a continuous voltage is produced across the capacitor
plates…”
So there you see. By restricting current the voltage potential
(attraction force) can be brought much higher. To increase the
efficiency even more the circuit was operated at resonance, and
inductors were added to prevent the capacitor from discharging, giving
it a constant voltage.
This is where Stan hit some difficult challenges in his work, and
this is where most forums and individuals are stuck. Resonance.
You have to realize that with water as the dielectric resonance will
not stay the same for any length of time. In fact it changes
constantly. Changing temperature, water splitting in the cell creating
bubbles between the plates, Water being split and leaving behind it’s
contaminants in the WFC and a few other factors cause the problem of
keeping resonance for any amount of time.
So Stan went on to develop the PLL circuit, a circuit which
automatically detects resonance and continuously scans signals as
resonance changes to keep the circuit as close to resonance as
possible.
A PLL circuit is commonly known in electronics as a Phase lock Loop,
it is made for matching frequencies and doing many more things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-locked_loop
http://scopeboy.com/tesla/drsstc/index.html
Example of PLL use for resonance in a tesla coil
After much time the circuits were made to work, but were scrapped for
his newest invention. The invention I call the MAGNETRON WFC.
We have all seen the picture of Stan Meyers WFC, the one that
contains the delrin housing, the magnet, ETC.
Here I will discuss this type of the WFC, I am not the first one to
point this out as it has been discussed by many others.
First, looking at a magnetron you should see 3 things about this WFC
that jump out at you:
1. The SS tube
2. The Magnet
3. The Vanes
In this WFC the SS tube (cathode) is given a high voltage negative
charge. This charge being negative produces a repelling force on the
surrounding electrons and the electrons are pushed away from the
cathode. The magnetic field produced by the permanent magnet has an
effect on the electrons and causes them to move spirally, outward
from
the cathode.
As the electrons move past the vanes (Anode Vanes) a
voltage is induced into the vanes that is equal to the cathode
voltage. The vanes being connected to each other form tiny LC
resonant
circuits as they not only have a current flowing through them which
forms an inductor but they have space between them which forms a
capacitor.
Because of the movement of the electrons which also carry a
magnetic field voltages are induced into the anode vanes. It is the
opposite voltages in the anode vanes that split the water molecules.
The resonant frequency is pumped into the cavities and no resonant
scanning locking circuit (PLL) is needed.
It should be noted that as the anode vanes are small they form very
small LC circuits which resonate at high frequencies which may
operate in the MICROWAVE range!
http://www.upv.es/gcm/docente/magnetron.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/magnetron.html
http://www.tufts.edu/as/tampl/en43/lecture_notes/ch7.html
http://www.cpii.com/docs/related/2/Mag%20tech%20art.pdf
The Websites above give a very good explanation of how Stan’s
magnetron WFC works.
Note that meyers setup the anode vanes were of a different
configuration that common magnetrons use.
So now we should know how 2 versions of the WFC work:
1. SS tube type
2. Magnetron type
The SS tube type split the water molecules using high voltage of
opposite polarity pulsed at resonant frequencies which are
controlled
by the resonant scanning/locking (PLL) circuit.
The Magnetron type split the water molecules using high voltage of
opposite polarity at resonant frequencies which are “pumped”
into the anode vanes and DO NOT require a resonant scanning/locking
circuit.
The only problem with the magnetron circuit is that, as each tiny LC
circuit only had one inductance the voltage was not constant. And as
we know when there are voltage off times between pulses we loose
efficiency. There was also the problem of hydrogen under pressure, as
we know hydrogen is extremely flammable, and when under pressure there
could be leaks, explosions etc.
Now on to the final, and best invention! The INJECTORS.
Looking at the injectors it seems very complex, hard to understand.
After all there is only one wire going to them from the distributor.
How could one wire (one voltage) split the water molecule when it
takes both positive and negative voltage to do that.
In the Tech Brief Stan claims a negative voltage is formed in the
injector due to "electron bunching or clustering.''
The Negative voltage is "induced" inside the injector. The formation
of this charge is known in physics as ELECTROSTATIC INDUCTION!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_induction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ36EtABLAk&feature=PlayList&p=8F65598...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics
Electrostatic induction is basically when one charged object charges
another nearby object to an opposite charge. This is because of the
physics law, opposites attract, like charges repel.
If you have an object which has a high positive charge (lack of
electrons) and you put it toward another object the positive charge
will attract electrons (negative charge) toward it, creating a
negative charge on the surface closest to the positive charged object,
while at the same time the positive charged object will repel the
positive charges on the other object away from it.
So you see, the Injectors work to split the water molecule using high
voltage of opposite charge. In the Tech Brief Stan claims the WFC can
be made as small as a Spark Plug.
He makes all three inventions seem like they are the same device, but
really as you’ve read you can see they are different. The part that is
the same is the fact that they all use HIGH VOLTAGE OF OPPOSITE
POLARITY while restricting amp flow “influxing” to split the water
molecule.
Now to make the resonance changes smaller in the Injectors, Stan used
an electrostatic filter to attract and trap contaminants in the water,
increasing the dielectric value of the dielectric, which increased the
capacitance, which reduced the resonant frequency and also made the
changes in resonance smaller.
Hope you enjoyed the explanation.
Please note that nothing written here is “Theory”. Everything here
has been proven and is common physics law, See references for more
understanding and proof of the simplicity Stan Meyers work. The
simplicity of his work is one reason why he made everything so
complicated and hard to understand, to protect it from being stolen.
If the common man understood the simplicity of creating and using
energy there would be no such thing as oil monopolies, pollution, and
carbon taxes! Our biggest cities would have the cleanest air, there
would be no third world countries, and our entire world would thrive
in it’s existence.
Last edited by HMS-776 on Tue May 12, 2009 6:17 am; edited 12 times in
total
Poutnik
May 6, 2012, 6:19:32 AM5/6/12
to
In article posted Sun, 6 May 2012 02:53:10 -0700 (PDT) to sci.physics,
knews4...@yahoo.com posted this..
> So, if we place the water molecule between two plates charged with
> opposite voltages, we know that the electrons spinning around the atom
> will all be attracted toward the positive plate, and the proton will
> be attracted toward the negative plate (opposites attract) thus
> slowing down the orbital movement of the atom(s), the higher the
> charges become the further the atom will be slowed down and pulled
> apart, until eventually the molecule splits into it's component
> atoms.
>
> This is how common electrolysis works.
>
Common electrolysis does not affect water molecules directly.
--
Poutnik
knews4...@yahoo.com posted this..
> So, if we place the water molecule between two plates charged with
> opposite voltages, we know that the electrons spinning around the atom
> will all be attracted toward the positive plate, and the proton will
> be attracted toward the negative plate (opposites attract) thus
> slowing down the orbital movement of the atom(s), the higher the
> charges become the further the atom will be slowed down and pulled
> apart, until eventually the molecule splits into it's component
> atoms.
>
> This is how common electrolysis works.
>
--
Poutnik
CWatters
May 6, 2012, 1:58:11 PM5/6/12
to
On 06/05/2012 10:53, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If the common man understood the simplicity of creating and using
> energy there would be no such thing as oil monopolies, pollution, and
> carbon taxes! Our biggest cities would have the cleanest air, there
> would be no third world countries, and our entire world would thrive
> in it’s existence.
>
> Last edited by HMS-776 on Tue May 12, 2009 6:17 am; edited 12 times in
> total
I guess that "explanation" and three years for the "common man" to think
> If the common man understood the simplicity of creating and using
> energy there would be no such thing as oil monopolies, pollution, and
> carbon taxes! Our biggest cities would have the cleanest air, there
> would be no third world countries, and our entire world would thrive
> in it’s existence.
>
> Last edited by HMS-776 on Tue May 12, 2009 6:17 am; edited 12 times in
> total
about it didn't have any effect on the oil monopolies.
knews4...@yahoo.com
May 6, 2012, 2:46:03 PM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 10:58 am, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
wrote:
No?
They are just ramping up the wars for energy and closing down society
to keep people from believing Meyer's work was not valid.
I'm sure having hydrogen will show up in some "law' as a "terorist
activity" so the Elite can keep the slaves hands off WFCs
I think as long as the internet stays up, individuals will build small
WFC systems for experiment and small home/off grid applications.
Small businesses will develop ad-ons and small new devices.
Larger businesses will develop completely new integrated apparatuses
for every application imaginable.
Devices include a WFC camping/survival stove that can be primed by
solar or windup for instance.
You always have to put some kind of motive power or charge to the
system, JUST LIKE ANY BATTERY.
Or small solar powered gas generators for home heating.
You don't get something for nothing.
In order to have a self contained unit one must combine the WFC with
the EPG "Electrical Particle Generator."
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Meyer+epg+candian+patent&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
With the two systems together, one can have all the gas, heat, and
electrical power needed for a home in a device the size of a water
heater.
All one needs is water, the hardware, and a priming charge.
Since Meyer's R.I.P. untimely death in 1998 has delayed development
and manufacture of WFC devices and systems, it will be 7 to 10 years
from now before we see the new devices ready for mass manufacture and
distribution.
There are thousands of experimenters out there which will turn into
device users and designer, investors and developers, into larger
entities allong with establish manufactures that will wake up soon to
Meyer's work.
He said many times, "The Technology will be brought in in concert in
many countries.
He had yet to experience the power of the internet inform the whole
world in 5 seconds..
Meyer stated in the mid 70's that "His mission was to bring in the
technology in order to end all wars over oil and energy."
His mission will be fulfilled in maybe 100 years if we can survive
that long.
I we just took the War(s) budget for just 1 YEAR's and put it toward
this technology?
Thanks to Nukushima, the world needs this technology more than ever.
The clock is ticking....
wrote:
They are just ramping up the wars for energy and closing down society
to keep people from believing Meyer's work was not valid.
I'm sure having hydrogen will show up in some "law' as a "terorist
activity" so the Elite can keep the slaves hands off WFCs
I think as long as the internet stays up, individuals will build small
WFC systems for experiment and small home/off grid applications.
Small businesses will develop ad-ons and small new devices.
Larger businesses will develop completely new integrated apparatuses
for every application imaginable.
Devices include a WFC camping/survival stove that can be primed by
solar or windup for instance.
You always have to put some kind of motive power or charge to the
system, JUST LIKE ANY BATTERY.
Or small solar powered gas generators for home heating.
You don't get something for nothing.
In order to have a self contained unit one must combine the WFC with
the EPG "Electrical Particle Generator."
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Meyer+epg+candian+patent&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
With the two systems together, one can have all the gas, heat, and
electrical power needed for a home in a device the size of a water
heater.
All one needs is water, the hardware, and a priming charge.
Since Meyer's R.I.P. untimely death in 1998 has delayed development
and manufacture of WFC devices and systems, it will be 7 to 10 years
from now before we see the new devices ready for mass manufacture and
distribution.
There are thousands of experimenters out there which will turn into
device users and designer, investors and developers, into larger
entities allong with establish manufactures that will wake up soon to
Meyer's work.
He said many times, "The Technology will be brought in in concert in
many countries.
He had yet to experience the power of the internet inform the whole
world in 5 seconds..
Meyer stated in the mid 70's that "His mission was to bring in the
technology in order to end all wars over oil and energy."
His mission will be fulfilled in maybe 100 years if we can survive
that long.
I we just took the War(s) budget for just 1 YEAR's and put it toward
this technology?
Thanks to Nukushima, the world needs this technology more than ever.
The clock is ticking....
Don Lancaster
May 6, 2012, 3:31:37 PM5/6/12
to
> I'm sure having hydrogen will show up in some "law' as a "terrorist
> activity"
I would certainly hope so, because of the safety issues alone.
See < http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu12.shtml#d04-29-12 > for useful links.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
HardySpicer
May 6, 2012, 3:38:31 PM5/6/12
to
On May 7, 5:58 am, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
wrote:
This is all BS. These amateurs appear to think that there is something
special about resonance.
You don't get any extra energy out when you hit resonance. In
electrical circuits (passive), the output power is always slightly
less than the input power. In active circuits
the excess power comes from the circuit power supply. All resonance
is, is a concentration of narrow frequencies, a bandpass filter.
Hardy
wrote:
special about resonance.
You don't get any extra energy out when you hit resonance. In
electrical circuits (passive), the output power is always slightly
less than the input power. In active circuits
the excess power comes from the circuit power supply. All resonance
is, is a concentration of narrow frequencies, a bandpass filter.
Hardy
小四
May 6, 2012, 9:55:25 PM5/6/12
to
Jim Wilkins
May 7, 2012, 8:04:23 AM5/7/12
to
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:a0o1ro...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> I'm sure having hydrogen will show up in some "law' as a "terrorist
>> activity"
>
> I would certainly hope so, because of the safety issues alone.
>
> See < http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu12.shtml#d04-29-12 > for useful
> links.
> Don Lancaster
>> I'm sure having hydrogen will show up in some "law' as a "terrorist
>> activity"
>
> I would certainly hope so, because of the safety issues alone.
>
> See < http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu12.shtml#d04-29-12 > for useful
> links.
Hydrogen isn't much different from other common flammable fuel gases,
except it doesn't have an intrinsic or added odor and people aren't
likely to experiment with home-made methane or propane fusion
reactors.
http://darhub.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-make-Biogas-Generator-at-Home
Acetylene is more dangerous. I keep my welding tanks in a locked shed
away from the house.
jsw
Don Lancaster
May 7, 2012, 12:43:39 PM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 5:04 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> Hydrogen isn't much different from other common flammable fuel gases,
> except it doesn't have an intrinsic or added odor and people aren't
> likely to experiment with home-made methane or propane fusion
> reactors.
Not even wrong.
>
> Hydrogen isn't much different from other common flammable fuel gases,
> except it doesn't have an intrinsic or added odor and people aren't
> likely to experiment with home-made methane or propane fusion
> reactors.
By any measure, hydrogen gas is exceptionally dangerous and in a class
by iteslf.
Hydrogen has by far the lowest spark ignition energy, rots most metals
through embrittlement, and eventually works its way through most any
barrier.
Its near invisible flame makes firefighting problematic. The usual stunt
is to "joust" the flame front with a broom.
One hydrogen experimenter was asked to leave that big hole in the map
between California and Utah where Nevada used to be. When they
simultaneously tried for a Darwin award and the X prize. Unfortunately,
their garage failed to make low earth orbit.
< http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.shtml >
Gunner Asch
May 7, 2012, 1:36:53 PM5/7/12
to
On Mon, 7 May 2012 08:04:23 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I keep mine in a multibottle rack out in the back yard in the welding
shop. Flammable gases INSIDE a structure are not a great idea..least of
all..one that autoignites with sufficient CFM concentraion....
--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".
wrote:
shop. Flammable gases INSIDE a structure are not a great idea..least of
all..one that autoignites with sufficient CFM concentraion....
--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".
Jim Wilkins
May 7, 2012, 2:14:22 PM5/7/12
to
news:a0qcdf...@mid.individual.net...
stuckee for UL-type "safety" experiments involving blowing up charging
lead-acid batteries and similar devices with accident potential. I
also set off a few model Hindenburgs, spray cans, fire extinguishers
and other lab and home pressure containers in remote sandpits out of
curiosity. Sharp-edged metal container fragments can fly a long ways
and still have enough energy to stick into trees.
The hydrogen-filled Hindenburgs turned out to be tame enough to use as
indoor college pranks. They only rattled windows when the firecracker
ignited the balloon, with more WHOOMP than bang despite some air
inside. For context other students were depth-charging the sinks and
toilets to pieces and shooting squirrels from the windows.
Hydrogen may require unique and specific handling procedures but it
doesn't explode any more violently than other gases, except acetylene
which reputedly can detonate under pressure. These aren't the times to
be Googling for references on it.
.
> On 5/7/2012 5:04 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> By any measure, hydrogen gas is exceptionally dangerous and in a
> class by iteslf.
Being an electronic lab tech with a chemistry degree I have been the
>
> By any measure, hydrogen gas is exceptionally dangerous and in a
> class by iteslf.
stuckee for UL-type "safety" experiments involving blowing up charging
lead-acid batteries and similar devices with accident potential. I
also set off a few model Hindenburgs, spray cans, fire extinguishers
and other lab and home pressure containers in remote sandpits out of
curiosity. Sharp-edged metal container fragments can fly a long ways
and still have enough energy to stick into trees.
The hydrogen-filled Hindenburgs turned out to be tame enough to use as
indoor college pranks. They only rattled windows when the firecracker
ignited the balloon, with more WHOOMP than bang despite some air
inside. For context other students were depth-charging the sinks and
toilets to pieces and shooting squirrels from the windows.
Hydrogen may require unique and specific handling procedures but it
doesn't explode any more violently than other gases, except acetylene
which reputedly can detonate under pressure. These aren't the times to
be Googling for references on it.
.
Bob F
May 7, 2012, 3:11:17 PM5/7/12
to
violently. At least, a sandwich bag filled with it made one hell of a bang when
a friend of mine tried it.
Jim Wilkins
May 7, 2012, 4:13:52 PM5/7/12
to
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jo96om$h0s$1...@dont-email.me...
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> ...
>> Hydrogen may require unique and specific handling procedures but it
>> doesn't explode any more [or less] violently than other gases,
>> except acetylene
>> which reputedly can detonate under pressure. These aren't the times
>> to
>> be Googling for references on it.
>>
>
> The hydrogen/oxygen mixture produced by charging batteries burns
> quite violently. At least, a sandwich bag filled with it made one
> hell of a bang when a friend of mine tried it.
Ever hear a carbide cannon go off?
>> which reputedly can detonate under pressure. These aren't the times
>> to
>> be Googling for references on it.
>>
>
> The hydrogen/oxygen mixture produced by charging batteries burns
> quite violently. At least, a sandwich bag filled with it made one
> hell of a bang when a friend of mine tried it.
The most violent gas explosion I've caused was a trash bag of lacquer
thinner vapor from cleaning a spray gun. A friend lost his hearing by
igniting a bag of oxyacetylene mix.
Hydrogen leaks through solid steel and has no odor. It's dangerous for
its handling properties.
jsw
knews4...@yahoo.com
May 8, 2012, 10:56:03 PM5/8/12
to
On May 7, 1:13 pm, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
experiments to compare to Meyer's process.
They wouldn't let me show "Water Power" at the Earth Day Event I tried
to attend because "They didn't want a car running at the event."
So, I parked a block away where many were walking with a big sign
"Water is Fuel" and me my tech help and I proceeded to fill up zip
lock bags and light them.
I'm taking video of this and a girl 5 feet by with some nice little
plants just as the bag pops of like a fire cracker and the girl throws
her plants up in the air from the boom. It was hilarious.
Another time for the local paper Editor who I'd been trying to get to
write an article about Meyer/Hydrogen kept saying "show me so,me
hardware."
So with my trusted "enhancer" with him in attendance, we filled a bag
about the size of a 1.5 foot diameter balloon. When we sparked it it
was BOOOOOOOOM city. Our ears were ringing as were 5 feet away. The
whole apartment complex over looking the parking lot had the windows
=rattle and people looking out their windows.
Shit.
They NEVER KNEW WHAT HIT THEM.
Our neighbor used to drive the neighborhood crazy with his carbide
cannon on July 4th, Memorial Day, et al.
cannon on July 4th, Memorial Day, et al.
> The most violent gas explosion I've caused was a trash bag of lacquer
> thinner vapor from cleaning a spray gun. A friend lost his hearing by
> igniting a bag of oxyacetylene mix.
>
> Hydrogen leaks through solid steel and has no odor. It's dangerous for
> its handling properties.
>
> jsw
Part of Meyer' WFC Tech base and Patents include having the HHO
available "one demand" as stated by NASA in their FOUR requirements on
use for the gases. Mo appreciable gases are held in storage.
Get that?
That is why the WFC injectors are the ultimately reality for a car.
They convert and explode in the gases in the cylinder in micro
seconds.
This is Meyer's "Hydrogen Fracturing Process."
http://www.globalkast.com/docs/SMeyer-Controlled_Process_For_The_Production_Of_Thermal_Energy_From_Gases_And_Apparatus_Useful_Therefore-US4826581.pdf
Details of Meyer's systems.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4110288/Run-Car-on-Water-stanley-meyer-resonant-electrolysis-cell-system-collection
Storage of "explosive gases" will be small and centralized if any ever
were to happen in other WFC systems just as your car and the trucks
hauling petrol are now as safe as they now can be.
Meyer invented his own "Anti-Spark Back Choking Circuit as part of his
need to produce, supply, and combust the gases "under controlled
means" for any energy consuming device.
He produced clear vinyl "Anti-Spark Back hose" and ceramic circuits
which are made with micro sized holes to transport the gases to
appliances.
If you tried to light the end of it it merely melted and sealed of the
tube safely without spark back to the source.
It's all there in the master Tech Brief he published.
http://vixra.org/pdf/0811.0001v1.pdf
Yes, there is NO iput/output data but if you take the Danforth scetch,
Meyer's Patents and a few bucks and time you would have duplicated the
Electrical Polarization Process yourself years ago for yourself to
measure.
But Meyer spent millions on patents, attorneys, prototype development,
travel worldwide lecturing on his processes, defending a Breach of
Contract suit "ALL CREATED TO SCAM PEOPLE OF THEIR MONEY, RIGHT?"
I admit the evidence is "circumstantial" instead of "scientific" BUT
who says which comes FIRST?
YOU act like you have a right to his data because "you don't believe
it."
As far as Meyer is concerned his patents issued under "Special" review
of Sec 101, 114 of the PTO is ALL HE NEEDS as proof.
You lazy guys will catch on in few years.
That will be when you can buy Meyer's 8XA and X9A PCB's at radio shack
and Wally World.
Oh, wait a minute, YOU CAN get them on the internet already.....
But YOU won't because you'll let somebody else, til the soil, grow the
grain, cut the grain, grind the seed, and BAKE THE BREAD BEFORE YOU
WILL "EAT IT."
Thanks for all your help saving the planet from the carbon fuel
Gangsters.
> "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jo96om$h0s$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > Jim Wilkins wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Hydrogen may require unique and specific handling procedures but it
> >> doesn't explode any more [or less] violently than other gases,
> >> except acetylene
> >> which reputedly can detonate under pressure. These aren't the times
> >> to
> >> be Googling for references on it.
>
> > The hydrogen/oxygen mixture produced by charging batteries burns
> > quite violently. At least, a sandwich bag filled with it made one
> > hell of a bang when a friend of mine tried it.
>
I did this years ago with a small electrolyzer I put on my car for
> news:jo96om$h0s$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > Jim Wilkins wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Hydrogen may require unique and specific handling procedures but it
> >> doesn't explode any more [or less] violently than other gases,
> >> except acetylene
> >> which reputedly can detonate under pressure. These aren't the times
> >> to
> >> be Googling for references on it.
>
> > The hydrogen/oxygen mixture produced by charging batteries burns
> > quite violently. At least, a sandwich bag filled with it made one
> > hell of a bang when a friend of mine tried it.
>
experiments to compare to Meyer's process.
They wouldn't let me show "Water Power" at the Earth Day Event I tried
to attend because "They didn't want a car running at the event."
So, I parked a block away where many were walking with a big sign
"Water is Fuel" and me my tech help and I proceeded to fill up zip
lock bags and light them.
I'm taking video of this and a girl 5 feet by with some nice little
plants just as the bag pops of like a fire cracker and the girl throws
her plants up in the air from the boom. It was hilarious.
Another time for the local paper Editor who I'd been trying to get to
write an article about Meyer/Hydrogen kept saying "show me so,me
hardware."
So with my trusted "enhancer" with him in attendance, we filled a bag
about the size of a 1.5 foot diameter balloon. When we sparked it it
was BOOOOOOOOM city. Our ears were ringing as were 5 feet away. The
whole apartment complex over looking the parking lot had the windows
=rattle and people looking out their windows.
Shit.
They NEVER KNEW WHAT HIT THEM.
Our neighbor used to drive the neighborhood crazy with his carbide
cannon on July 4th, Memorial Day, et al.
> Ever hear a carbide cannon go off?
>
Our neighbor used to drive the neighborhood crazy with his carbide
>
cannon on July 4th, Memorial Day, et al.
> The most violent gas explosion I've caused was a trash bag of lacquer
> thinner vapor from cleaning a spray gun. A friend lost his hearing by
> igniting a bag of oxyacetylene mix.
>
> Hydrogen leaks through solid steel and has no odor. It's dangerous for
> its handling properties.
>
> jsw
available "one demand" as stated by NASA in their FOUR requirements on
use for the gases. Mo appreciable gases are held in storage.
Get that?
That is why the WFC injectors are the ultimately reality for a car.
They convert and explode in the gases in the cylinder in micro
seconds.
This is Meyer's "Hydrogen Fracturing Process."
http://www.globalkast.com/docs/SMeyer-Controlled_Process_For_The_Production_Of_Thermal_Energy_From_Gases_And_Apparatus_Useful_Therefore-US4826581.pdf
Details of Meyer's systems.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4110288/Run-Car-on-Water-stanley-meyer-resonant-electrolysis-cell-system-collection
Storage of "explosive gases" will be small and centralized if any ever
were to happen in other WFC systems just as your car and the trucks
hauling petrol are now as safe as they now can be.
Meyer invented his own "Anti-Spark Back Choking Circuit as part of his
need to produce, supply, and combust the gases "under controlled
means" for any energy consuming device.
He produced clear vinyl "Anti-Spark Back hose" and ceramic circuits
which are made with micro sized holes to transport the gases to
appliances.
If you tried to light the end of it it merely melted and sealed of the
tube safely without spark back to the source.
It's all there in the master Tech Brief he published.
http://vixra.org/pdf/0811.0001v1.pdf
Yes, there is NO iput/output data but if you take the Danforth scetch,
Meyer's Patents and a few bucks and time you would have duplicated the
Electrical Polarization Process yourself years ago for yourself to
measure.
But Meyer spent millions on patents, attorneys, prototype development,
travel worldwide lecturing on his processes, defending a Breach of
Contract suit "ALL CREATED TO SCAM PEOPLE OF THEIR MONEY, RIGHT?"
I admit the evidence is "circumstantial" instead of "scientific" BUT
who says which comes FIRST?
YOU act like you have a right to his data because "you don't believe
it."
As far as Meyer is concerned his patents issued under "Special" review
of Sec 101, 114 of the PTO is ALL HE NEEDS as proof.
You lazy guys will catch on in few years.
That will be when you can buy Meyer's 8XA and X9A PCB's at radio shack
and Wally World.
Oh, wait a minute, YOU CAN get them on the internet already.....
But YOU won't because you'll let somebody else, til the soil, grow the
grain, cut the grain, grind the seed, and BAKE THE BREAD BEFORE YOU
WILL "EAT IT."
Thanks for all your help saving the planet from the carbon fuel
Gangsters.
Jim Wilkins
May 9, 2012, 6:28:20 AM5/9/12
to
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81a0eb8f-cdc1-48ee...@i8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
-I did this years ago with a small electrolyzer I put on my car for
-experiments to compare to Meyer's process.
-They wouldn't let me show "Water Power" at the Earth Day Event I
tried
-to attend because "They didn't want a car running at the event."
Why don't you build this into a lawnmower or model airplane engine and
have a portable, testable demonstration model?
jsw
news:81a0eb8f-cdc1-48ee...@i8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
-I did this years ago with a small electrolyzer I put on my car for
-experiments to compare to Meyer's process.
-They wouldn't let me show "Water Power" at the Earth Day Event I
tried
-to attend because "They didn't want a car running at the event."
Why don't you build this into a lawnmower or model airplane engine and
have a portable, testable demonstration model?
jsw
Alim Nassor
May 9, 2012, 10:04:13 AM5/9/12
to
On May 7, 3:13 pm, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You can detonate oxy/acetylene with a bullet. Fill a 2 liter coke
bottle with the mixture, cap it off, stand back 50 yards and hit it
with a 22. The shock wave will take your breath away.
> "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
bottle with the mixture, cap it off, stand back 50 yards and hit it
with a 22. The shock wave will take your breath away.
Don Lancaster
May 9, 2012, 12:09:30 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 3:28 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> Why don't you build this into a lawnmower or model airplane engine and
> have a portable, testable demonstration model?
>
> jsw
>
>
Or why not use an Electrochemical Impedance Spectrometer to instantly
>
> Why don't you build this into a lawnmower or model airplane engine and
> have a portable, testable demonstration model?
>
> jsw
>
>
verify the mind numbingly obvious bogosity beyond a shadow of a doubt?
As routinely happens many millions of times each day.
<
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=electrochemical+impedance+spectroscopy&sprefix=electroch%2Cstripbooks%2C271
>
Additional alternatives at
< http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu12.shtml#d04-29-12 >
and < http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse137.pdf >
Jim Wilkins
May 9, 2012, 12:26:19 PM5/9/12
to
news:a0vj5f...@mid.individual.net...
I just passed one up at the Hamfest and bought the HP 18GHz Spectrum
Analyzer instead.
jsw
> On 5/9/2012 3:28 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> Why don't you build this into a lawnmower or model airplane engine
>> and
>> have a portable, testable demonstration model?
>>
>> jsw
> Or why not use an Electrochemical Impedance Spectrometer to
> instantly verify the mind numbingly obvious bogosity beyond a shadow
> of a doubt?
>
Darn!
>> Why don't you build this into a lawnmower or model airplane engine
>> and
>> have a portable, testable demonstration model?
>>
>> jsw
> Or why not use an Electrochemical Impedance Spectrometer to
> instantly verify the mind numbingly obvious bogosity beyond a shadow
> of a doubt?
>
I just passed one up at the Hamfest and bought the HP 18GHz Spectrum
Analyzer instead.
jsw
Bob F
May 9, 2012, 2:43:04 PM5/9/12
to
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I did this years ago with a small electrolyzer I put on my car for
> experiments to compare to Meyer's process.
> They wouldn't let me show "Water Power" at the Earth Day Event I tried
> to attend because "They didn't want a car running at the event."
> So, I parked a block away where many were walking with a big sign
> "Water is Fuel" and me my tech help and I proceeded to fill up zip
> lock bags and light them.
> I'm taking video of this and a girl 5 feet by with some nice little
> plants just as the bag pops of like a fire cracker and the girl throws
> her plants up in the air from the boom. It was hilarious.
You, of course, immediately offered to replace her plants, and compensate her
> I did this years ago with a small electrolyzer I put on my car for
> experiments to compare to Meyer's process.
> They wouldn't let me show "Water Power" at the Earth Day Event I tried
> to attend because "They didn't want a car running at the event."
> So, I parked a block away where many were walking with a big sign
> "Water is Fuel" and me my tech help and I proceeded to fill up zip
> lock bags and light them.
> I'm taking video of this and a girl 5 feet by with some nice little
> plants just as the bag pops of like a fire cracker and the girl throws
> her plants up in the air from the boom. It was hilarious.
for the trouble.
You didn't? Why am I not surprised?
knews4...@yahoo.com
May 9, 2012, 4:30:24 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 11:43 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
She didn't ask or blame us for replacements.
YOU ASSUME they were destroyed.
Great science.
You got anything else to smear an experimenter?
You gonna contribute the the subject at hand or continue to troll?
YOU ASSUME they were destroyed.
Great science.
You got anything else to smear an experimenter?
You gonna contribute the the subject at hand or continue to troll?
Jim Wilkins
May 11, 2012, 8:38:32 AM5/11/12
to
news:a0vj5f...@mid.individual.net...
> Don Lancaster
Interesting.
I've used a Network Analyzer
http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/usedequipment/hewlettpackard/networkanalyzers/8753c.htm
quite a bit to carve impedance-matching microwave stripline networks,
and the interpretation of the frequency and Smith chart displays was
puzzling to a knot of Ph.D.s, let alone me.
One of them had me build an impulse response tester to measure
Dielectric Absorption rather than plotting its frequency
characteristic.
jsw
> On 5/9/2012 3:28 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> and < http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse137.pdf
>
> Don Lancaster
Interesting.
I've used a Network Analyzer
http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/usedequipment/hewlettpackard/networkanalyzers/8753c.htm
quite a bit to carve impedance-matching microwave stripline networks,
and the interpretation of the frequency and Smith chart displays was
puzzling to a knot of Ph.D.s, let alone me.
One of them had me build an impulse response tester to measure
Dielectric Absorption rather than plotting its frequency
characteristic.
jsw
Don Lancaster
May 11, 2012, 12:44:52 PM5/11/12
to
water power car.
Should such a ludicrous effect exist, anomalies would certainly have
long ago shown up in the millions of routine day to day measurements in
dozens of different fields.
EIS measurements are but one of many examples.
The "experiment" is thus run many millions of times daily.
With uniformly negative results.
Jim Wilkins
May 11, 2012, 1:42:20 PM5/11/12
to
news:4FAD4204...@tinaja.com...
knowledge of science doesn't meet even 15th Century standards, and
they uncritically accept promised miracles.
jsw
> On 5/11/2012 5:38 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> ...
> The key point being that there is no need to drive coast to coast in
> a water power car.
>
> Should such a ludicrous effect exist, anomalies would certainly have
> long ago shown up in the millions of routine day to day measurements
> in dozens of different fields.
You and I know that, but I'm convinced that far too many peoples'
> a water power car.
>
> Should such a ludicrous effect exist, anomalies would certainly have
> long ago shown up in the millions of routine day to day measurements
> in dozens of different fields.
knowledge of science doesn't meet even 15th Century standards, and
they uncritically accept promised miracles.
jsw
Mho
May 21, 2012, 11:55:42 PM5/21/12
to
Baloney!
Voltage is not related to any point in space but rather the difference in
potential between two points.
You can't even get the basics right to begin with.
-----------
wrote in message
news:50a61a9c-b9e4-48cc...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Voltage is not related to any point in space but rather the difference in
potential between two points.
You can't even get the basics right to begin with.
-----------
wrote in message
news:50a61a9c-b9e4-48cc...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
G=EMC^2
May 22, 2012, 8:57:19 AM5/22/12
to
On May 21, 11:55 pm, "Mho" <Impeda...@UgotOCD.invalid> wrote:
> Baloney!
>
> Voltage is not related to any point in space but rather the difference in
> potential between two points.
>
> You can't even get the basics right to begin with.
>
> -----------
> wrote in messagenews:50a61a9c-b9e4-48cc...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Baloney!
>
> Voltage is not related to any point in space but rather the difference in
> potential between two points.
>
> You can't even get the basics right to begin with.
>
> -----------
>
> From:http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1299
>
> Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:24 am Post subject: The Physics of
> Efficient Water Splitting::Stan's secrets exp
>
> by: HMS-776
> This post and the things described in it are not up for debate.
> Everything explained in this post is physics law.
>
> Voltage is defined as an electric potential (charge) at a point in
> space.
>
> Voltage can be of a positive charge, defined as a lack of electrons
>
> Or a negative charge, defined as an excess of electrons
>
> Voltage is the driving force that causes the movement of electrons
> (current flow)
Voltage is pressure. Electricity needs a conductor to move. TreBert
> From:http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1299
>
> Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:24 am Post subject: The Physics of
> Efficient Water Splitting::Stan's secrets exp
>
> by: HMS-776
> This post and the things described in it are not up for debate.
> Everything explained in this post is physics law.
>
> Voltage is defined as an electric potential (charge) at a point in
> space.
>
> Voltage can be of a positive charge, defined as a lack of electrons
>
> Or a negative charge, defined as an excess of electrons
>
> Voltage is the driving force that causes the movement of electrons
> (current flow)
Mho
May 28, 2012, 10:50:52 PM5/28/12
to
Space needs ears to reside between.
-----------
"G=EMC^2" wrote in message
news:42a0d008-4d22-4d51...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
-----------
"G=EMC^2" wrote in message
news:42a0d008-4d22-4d51...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Don Lancaster
May 29, 2012, 1:50:23 PM5/29/12
to
< http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu12.shtml#d04-29-12 >
Jim Wilkins
May 30, 2012, 8:24:51 AM5/30/12
to
news:a2kghj...@mid.individual.net...
> ...>
That leads to a good article you wrote on the difficulty of accurate
power measurement:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse112.pdf
jsw
> ...>
> But in this case, we are dealing with electrocity, not electricity.
>
> < http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu12.shtml#d04-29-12 >
>
> Don Lancaster
>
> < http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu12.shtml#d04-29-12 >
>
That leads to a good article you wrote on the difficulty of accurate
power measurement:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse112.pdf
jsw
Don Lancaster
May 30, 2012, 1:42:07 PM5/30/12
to
Jim Wilkins
May 31, 2012, 12:35:22 PM5/31/12
to
news:a2n4dn...@mid.individual.net...
I studied the advice in your Cheap Video series carefully when I was
designing my first computer.
Didn't follow it, because I could get free samples of the latest ICs,
but I sure appreciated the help.
jsw
> On 5/30/2012 5:24 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> ...
>> That leads to a good article you wrote on the difficulty of
>> accurate
>> power measurement:
>> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse112.pdf
>> jsw
> ALL articles I wrote are good.
> Don Lancaster
>> accurate
>> power measurement:
>> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse112.pdf
>> jsw
> ALL articles I wrote are good.
I studied the advice in your Cheap Video series carefully when I was
designing my first computer.
Didn't follow it, because I could get free samples of the latest ICs,
but I sure appreciated the help.
jsw
Mho
Jun 2, 2012, 10:23:06 PM6/2/12
to
"TTL Cookbook", and "Video Cookbook", were bibles used by my father and
myself for many years.
The TTL was used for many years but the Video Cookbook circuits were only
drooled over. Never built anything from it but learned lots.
Very inspiring and enabling.
--
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:jq86hb$c77$1...@dont-email.me...
myself for many years.
The TTL was used for many years but the Video Cookbook circuits were only
drooled over. Never built anything from it but learned lots.
Very inspiring and enabling.
--
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:jq86hb$c77$1...@dont-email.me...
I studied the advice in your Cheap Video series carefully when I was
designing my first computer.
Didn't follow it, because I could get free samples of the latest ICs,
but I sure appreciated the help.
jsw
--------
designing my first computer.
Didn't follow it, because I could get free samples of the latest ICs,
but I sure appreciated the help.
jsw
0 new messages