PWM - browns gas generator

[ericgibbs]

Back at you.

hi Myles,
I know this reply is off topic, but bear with me,,

You should expect some criticism from your peers, the only evidence you have given to back your theory,
is from whats being posted on web sites.

We all know there are a number of individuals who enjoy sending people on wild goose chases just for the hell of it
and the web seems a good place for them to operate.

What you are trying to do has been tried in many well equiped labs around the world, with no success.

Electrolysis of H2O has been well established and used for many years.

Its the water molecular vibration bit, causing the disassociation of water molecules,
with zero energy input from a driving oscillator; that dosn't have any evidence to support it.

If you can find any factual/proven evidence that supports the theory, please post it and I will eat crow...

Regards

 

[Myles]

Please provide the data.



Data?

It is not a question of what you want to happen or what you dream may be happening, it is a question of fact. Do you have any data to present? Please show your results?

John

What I have put forward is theory. I could fudge you results of any nature, so as to satisfy your scrutiny, but that is not my intent.
My intent is to open your mind not your mouth.
I do not ask you to believe, I do not ask you to verify.
I am simply suggesting a physical model for an actual occurrence, because if it hadn't been done, this thread wouldn't exist.
I am replicating the device, but it is a time consuming process, and my equipment and resources are very limited. When I have results, I will no doubt share them. In the mean time, please share your opinions to the topic, and keep your opinions of me to yourself.

 

[Myles]

You should expect some criticism from your peers, the only evidence you have given to back your theory,
is from whats being posted on web sites.

Understood. Not all of it is derived from the deranged, though, and most of it isn't tied together or stated clearly on those sites.
But yes, if I were my peer, I'd also be waiting in line to take a shot.
Thank you for understanding that that would do no good, and reading with an open mind.

We all know there are a number of individuals who enjoy sending people on wild goose chases just for the hell of it
and the web seems a good place for them to operate.

Most definitely. But I'd like to say that, more often than not, where there's a chase, there's a goose. I say, if we're already on the chase, let's try harder to catch the goose than to disprove its existence.

What you are trying to do has been tried in many well equiped labs around the world, with no success.

My guess is they tried not to prove it.
It's very easy to not prove something.
Ever pondered if the conclusions of myth busters may be malformed by improper experimentation through negligence, ignorance or bias?
Maybe not myth busters, but I wouldn't put it past any government of funding organization..

Its the water molecular vibration bit, causing the disassociation of water molecules,
with zero energy input from a driving oscillator; that dosn't have any evidence to support it.

I have no proof for you now, maybe someday I shall have.
But in the meantime, I propose the theory that "if it can work, with regard to observed physical laws and habits of the universe, then it most likely will."

Has anyone found it not to work?

If you can find any factual/proven evidence that supports the theory, please post it and I will eat crow...

And if it doesn't, it's black-bird pie for me..

Regards,
Myles

 

[Myles]

Fact?

If you can find any factual/proven evidence that supports the theory...

Regards

I could find videos of working cells, driving cars and meter readings,
But I don't really think there is such thing as both postable and irrefutable evidence. I think it's the type of thing one needs to examine one's self to be sure of, because media is both an emphasis and equivocation. Still, if I get anything I think will hold, or any personal results, I'll post right away.

Thanks for the support and advice to all those involved.

 

[jpanhalt]

What I have put forward is theory.

There is a difference between theory and outlandish claims and dreams.

Yes, this will change the infrared adsorption spectra. It will enlarge it, thus making the water more conducive to absorbing a larger spectrum of IR light.

So, if your theory is correct, there should be a change in the IR spectrum of water (condensed) depending on whether you are irradiating it with your 42 KHz energy. At least that is what you claim.

Now, one cannot disprove that proposition according to simple logic theory; however, you could prove it. And of course, anyone else who might try to prove it and fail, would be accused by you as not trying hard enough.

My guess is they tried not to prove it.
It's very easy to not prove something.

So, why don't you prove it? That is what science is all about.

John

 

[killivolt]

Persistence and Pursuance

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." --Einstein Albert

Do not mistake this for those who simply require validation. For these people on this site are your contemporary's. We are subject to this time period maybe someday we will find the key to unlock that door. They just question the simplicity of such a statement. When so many have failed.


Meanwhile there is still a rage of the effect of law versus Science. It's all there but we still are confuse about the distance and time it may require. How many times did it take to create a light bulb. Yet the ignorance of a News Reporter as to imply that the Inventor had failed so many times until his last attempt.

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. Thomas Edison

Pursue, meanwhile I wait.

Thank you for due diligence. kv

 

[HarveyH42]

I've seen many of these threads on this forum, past few years. Not really curious enough to actually try it myself. Explosives and pyromania just don't interest me. I can deal with getting a little jolt now and then, but something blowing up in my face...

Anyway, have had an interest in resonant frequency since ready about Tesla's earthquake machine. How was the magic frequency of 42 kHz derived? Wouldn't there be a lot of factors involved for a liquid, such as the container, impurities, the electrode, atmospheric pressure, temperature... I would think the frequency would constantly be changing. Or do you just need to be in the ballpark, and not that critical. I know from personal experience that a 555 isn't stable at all.

 

[k7elp60]

I know from personal experience that a 555 isn't stable at all.

It depends upon what tolerance you want. I have built 555 oscillators around 700Hz that are very stable, day in day out within 2 or 3 Hz of the original frequency.

 

[killivolt]

Anyway, have had an interest in resonant frequency since ready about Tesla's earthquake machine. How was the magic frequency of 42 kHz derived? Wouldn't there be a lot of factors involved for a liquid, such as the container, impurities, the electrode, atmospheric pressure, temperature... .

What I think is kind of interesting is the cup of water in a Microwave and the effect of surface tension.

It may not start to boil until something or someone touches the surface and suddenly it releases it's energy storage ?

Does this theory actually hold water or is it just more hot air ?

kv

 

[killivolt]

Sonar in a Microwave

Based on my previous post and the surface tension notion. Would a microwave with built in sonar have the effect as to prevent and allow the water to boil when reaching it's boiling point ?

Edit: I realize this may have little to do with hydrogen production but I just think understanding the covalent bonds and the amount of energy needed just to make steam is kinda of cool. Plus someone might not ever need to worry about being burnt by water in a microwave ?

 

[jpanhalt]

It may not start to boil until something or someone touches the surface and suddenly it releases it's energy storage ?

kv

The "boiling" that one observes depends on convection, which depends on gravity, and a source of nucleation to initiate it.

You can demonstrate the nucleation phenomenon with a conventional heat source and degassed water. Take distilled water in a clean pot, heat to boiling, let cool, then without moving it, re-heat carefully to boiling. Be careful. In many cases the second re-heating will reach a super-heated temperature and once boiling is initiated, the boiling will be violent to the point of splashing and "boiling over."

The reason one sees the super-heating effect more often when heating in a microwave is probably that there are fewer hot spots with microwave heating than when using an electric burner or open flame.

John

 

[killivolt]

The "boiling" that one observes depends on convection, which depends on gravity, and a source of nucleation to initiate it.

You can demonstrate the nucleation phenomenon with a conventional heat source and degassed water. Take distilled water in a clean pot, heat to boiling, let cool, then without moving it, re-heat carefully to boiling. Be careful. In many cases the second re-heating will reach a super-heated temperature and once boiling is initiated, the boiling will be violent to the point of splashing and "boiling over."

The reason one sees the super-heating effect more often when heating in a microwave is probably that there are fewer hot spots with microwave heating than when using an electric burner or open flame.

John

I'm doing it !!!!

 

[Space Varmint]

It depends upon what tolerance you want. I have built 555 oscillators around 700Hz that are very stable, day in day out within 2 or 3 Hz of the original frequency.

Why don't you just skip the 555 weak driver and build an Armstrong oscillator out of the power MOSFET or whatever you are using?

 

[jpanhalt]

Better yet, use an Infineon product and win $10,000.

**broken link removed**

Unfortunately, I don't think Infineon will pay for just a theoretical product.

John

 

[Myles]

So, why don't you prove it? That is what science is all about.
John

Ball is rolling, but it's gonna take me a while..
Wish me luck, or at least clarity.

 

[Conrad_Turbo]

HHO production that requires zero current??? So in THEORY you could convert the entire ocean into hydrogen and oxygen with a "aa" battery? Must be a mighty sexy "aa" battery to entice the water to rip itself apart. Sorry energy comes from somewhere and there are efficiencies involved when converting something from one form to another.

Why is it every time a HHO topic comes up the poster/instigator seems brainwashed or has a cult like mentality? I've noticed this on a lot of forums...

 

[audioguru]

Why is it every time a HHO topic comes up the poster/instigator seems brainwashed or has a cult like mentality? I've noticed this on a lot of forums...

It is because they paid a fortune to buy the SCAM book about it.

 

[HarveyH42]

HHO production that requires zero current??? So in THEORY you could convert the entire ocean into hydrogen and oxygen with a "aa" battery? Must be a mighty sexy "aa" battery to entice the water to rip itself apart. Sorry energy comes from somewhere and there are efficiencies involved when converting something from one form to another.

Why is it every time a HHO topic comes up the poster/instigator seems brainwashed or has a cult like mentality? I've noticed this on a lot of forums...

I think you need more then a AA, maybe a car battery. It's only needed to get the reaction started, then you can remove it, and it will keep going until it runs out of water...

 

[audioguru]

When the battery is removed then the reaction stops. Think about ordinary physics and chemistry.

 

[mneary]

It's only needed to get the reaction started, then you can remove it, and it will keep going until it runs out of water...

If it's truly over-unity, it should promptly explode.