Does anyone know what the reaction is , when theres no electrolyte?
Started by unknown · · 48 posts · last reply 1 September 2015
-
#26 · date not recorded
I mentioned HOH several years ago at ou.com and was met with complete silence. Everyone is so sure it's HHO.
H+OH burns with three times the energy as gasoline, according to a 70's article in Scientific American. -
#27 · date not recorded
your ignorance wont help you...
please film yourself while you burn your ph meter...
Thanks for you concern for my finances but you must be made aware that I have spent a lot of money in dealing with this technology in order to learn more about it so if the meter burns out that's just the cost of trying to learn something about this technology trust me I am use to it already. Is that why you wont get a differential probe for you are concerned it will burn out on you? You have to be willing to break a few eggs with this technology as we are dealing with a lot of unknowns.
I've spent months putting things together only to watch them burn up within a few minutes after being tested. It doesn't detour me as I learn from my mistakes as all I do is figure out what went wrong, fix the problem, and try again that is part of the scientific method. But I guess that is why you don't like to make use of the scientific method as it requires that you fail many times over until you get it right which a lot of times has a high cost to all of those failures, huh?
I could lay it all out on a line for you but what's the point as each time that I do you never acknowledge anything that you have been shown. In fact most of the time when I do lay it all out on the line for you you reject the science and or body of evidence outright with statements that have nothing supporting them other than they are an idea in your mind that you have chosen to cling too. So, again what's the point of showing you anything if your stance is always that of a Naysayer? Given the overwhelming body of evidence shown that lead towards this technology dealing with IONIZATION you still come in here and say "no it doesn't" without anything supporting your arguments for saying so. To date I have shown a number of reactions taking place in nature that show the original idea is supported by them and one of them even breaks the bonds of the water molecules with ionization and you still come in here and say, "It has nothing to do with ionization." The body of evidence that has been shown is stacked in my favor as they all support the idea that the water molecules are being broken down by way of ionization. Why are you so resistant to the body of evidence you are being shown as support for the idea especially when one of them actually does breaks the bonds of the water molecules with ionization? But my guess is that you missed that one, huh? The one where the bonds of the water molecules are actually being broken down by way of ionization as you never bothered to read anything posted fully, correct? Is this what you are learning in school to ignore supporting evidence and only make use of the scientific method as a last resort if it doesn't fit with how you think things work? If so you should be failing your classes as that is not how science is taught.
-
#28 · date not recorded
we are what we are.... those with pure heart will read thru my lines and see the true...
im sorry you want to win the prize of who´s who arrogant of the year... i know now why people have ignored you so hard... i wont waste more time reading or trying to see a reason behind your senseless theory, as a physiscist i indentify too much problems in your understanding of very simple concepts and i repudiate your arrogance more than your crappy theory... you can ignore me how much you want... lets see what others will do when i show it working... or the guy in the street i dont care... i dont ignored you when you came here talk about your video... i hope you have all the light on focus you want...
about burning things i just dont get money now to get another probe... it would not tell me what i had to know... nor will tell anyone... this is a false hope you created to yourself that having it you are closer than me or anybody else who have not.. you will never be better than anyone... you will never be close to science if you dont learn the simplest rules.... in nature survive whos stronger and the stronger will be the one with a crew.
i work with very pure water... but i also vary its purity during tests...
have you ever done the calculation of how many ions would be available thru the autoionization from water? do you know how much ions you got ? thats why i say its irrelevant to meyer magnitude of claims... or even horvath.... i did... if you would have a cavity having 1 liter of water in between plates how much ions would you got?
please do the math of your own theory before you claim its the right, or if you dont have the skills for doing it ask for help.. maybe help is all we need... what prevents you now from going there and make more turns and make it work?
my lazyness is the only thing between me and a working cell...
once my teacher of atomsic and molecular physics sub course, that when you ionize something you will create a current flow...not only because you steal that electron... because you created also motion of that specie, at the other electrode instantaneouly you will have another charge being displaced... thats why when you get for example a positive field it would steal one electron from the oxygen this electron will walk on the circuit... thats why i keep saying that is not simply about applying high voltage across the cell... there are other things playing that you dont get because you didnt folllow our ideas development like most here looking the big picture....
s
i had to come up with this theory out of nothing and yes a differential probe would tell me the same thing that my multimeter told me but i can read even if i cannot see... my multimeter has max and min measurements dc+ac so i´m good with it...
-
#29 · date not recorded
It is strange when people messing with this stuff run out of ideas. Hehehe.
Sebosfato is on the right track. Stop the current!.
-
#30 · date not recorded
[/quote]
yes
I shouldve just put pen to paper instead of searching
*Ignoring neutrons to make it less clutter
POSITIVE plate < OH- anion is attracted (9p 10e) = 2 e taken by Postive plate
O monatomic released (8p 8e)
H+ cation repelled (1p)
NEGATIVE plate < H3O+ cation is attracted (11p 10e) = 1 e given to H+ from OH-, 1e given to H+from H3O+
H+ monatomic released (1p 1e)
H2O formed (10p 10e)
this is similar to what george wiseman has with sodium hydroxide but with out sodium Hydroxide....., I couldnt find any break down formula any where of straight water
[/quote]
this is water between 2 plates with electon exchange , NOT a sample of water self ionising , say in a glass
got to raise the question ,
HOW did they reach the theory of self ionization ?
a sample of water with tin foil strip galvanic sensor ?
is it PURELY chalk board theory ?
is it pH levels ?
did the sample/s they use respond to the earths mag polarity ?
Im skeptical of patent info , Dad Garretts carb is too small to make any amount of useful gas .
I dont beleive at all that archie blue used aluminium plates in his cell , or that Pachecos cell was like the patent description , or that Horvath cell is anything like the patent , or Puharichs cell , so when I look at SM patent info , I dont see why he would release accurrate drawings and circuits .
and I dont beleive H Anderson has dangerous radioactive material on board , they called him "the King of the ion"
everyone has got to have a view on what they think is happening between the 2 plates . In the SM video it shows rapid production of gas and he fills it with tap water .
From what we can see there is only 2 plates in each cell
it has to be considered that water has its own natural properties before and during the process
either those natural properties are over ridden by the process or the properties are a part of the process or the properties are amplified to some degree
according to science , water self ionizes , THEY say 2H2O = OH- and H3O+
they are the ones who conjure up these formulas and we stick to them
Im skeptical of science as much as Im skeptical of religion . theres too many examples of inventors producing H gas from water that I just see science is road blocking
so I see peoples personal views on sites like this as being more valid and holding more value -
#31 · date not recorded
i think the only where i think i see stan show his production is when the buggy first run... other demosntrations i saw of him were very small gas production,,,
the question would be what cause that autoionization.... i guess is decurrence of natural background radiation... but there are some theories about it,.. the point is water is a matrix and this ions have to be equidistant from each other...
if you get their mean distance and charge and calculate you get the voltage that holds them equidistant,,
there is a discussion here in the forum about it somewhere in the past...
at the university i did a course on tecnology of fuell cell and there was my first contact with a polarization curve.... there i understood more how those ions behave,,,you could teach yourself on a goodbook about it -
#32 ·
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/2015-08-19_130012_zps1ayyxeyv.png)
http://sciexplorer.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/lightning-part-3-lightning-bolt.html
The air under a thunderstorm is very humid. Ionized hydrogen atoms split apart from from water vapour contribute red to the glow, so that ionized humid air glows violet. These are not my words but theirs and they say the hydrogen atoms split apart from water by way of ionization.
Is this clear enough for all of you! What more do you need?
And this information was shared with me from another person on the hereticalbuilders forum called doobie as he took the time to look for what I was talking about actually taking place in nature and, I might add, found it also.
"Molecules can be separated by taking the electrons away from them." ~ excite the electrons and take them away is the core science. This is my original idea and when I went looking for things like this taking place in nature I found them and shared what I found with everyone on this forum but these finds are rejected due to the man who's word is good as gold sebosfato. I clearly showed that a plant breaks down the water molecules in such a manor and again these are not my words but the words of others explaining how photosynthesis works. Like I said the evidence supporting what I am saying is overwhelming. But here on this forum all of this evidence is treated as something freely given has no value.
I show voltages being applied to the exciter array that no one has ever shown before and I emphasis the word shown as sebosfato has never shown what voltages he is placing on his exciter array as it is only his words which again are taken to be good as gold without any proof backing his words up. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever shown voltages this high being applied to the WFC other than myself. Not Max Miller, Outlawstc, Russ Griess, Don Gable, Sebosfato, and the list goes on and on and the only way to show this is with an oscilloscope like that of Outlawstc and Max Miller or with a set of differential probes. 8.8kv of potential difference is what I showed and again I have not seen anyone to this date showing voltages that high being placed on their WFC's as I have shown all of you. And again what are the working voltages of the exciter array according to Stanley A. Meyer in his patents? 10-20kv correct? I showed my work and all of this disdain is what I get for my efforts in doing so. If you have to get a differential probe to be able to show your work then get it and do so once you have it as your words are not as good as gold as I require proof just like all of you said I had to do when I showed my work to all of you.
From my point of view you don't want this technology in spite of how much you all say you do as you never demand proof from those coming at you with just their words to back up what they say. Prove me wrong and start demanding that people show you proof of what they are telling you.
Shalom,
TGS -
#33 ·
i agree with you in many aspects for example
i didnt said thunderstorm wont break water.. i said they are not breaking it thru the switch off of the covalent bounding...
i didnt said your undertanding of plants are incorrect i just said is has little to do with the electrical polarization process...
"Molecules can be separated by taking the electrons away from them." ~ excite the electrons and take them away is the core science.
the above is nothing more than an obvious statement that tells that if you take the brick off from a wall the wall will fall...
words are meaningless without trust... if you dont trust what i say why should you trust in my tables... now why should i show you any?
can the water molecule be broken without any exchange of electrons? -
#34 ·
i agree with you in many aspects for example
i didnt said thunderstorm wont break water.. i said they are not breaking it thru the switch off of the covalent bounding...
i didnt said your undertanding of plants are incorrect i just said is has little to do with the electrical polarization process...
"Molecules can be separated by taking the electrons away from them." ~ excite the electrons and take them away is the core science.
the above is nothing more than an obvious statement that tells that if you take the brick off from a wall the wall will fall...
words are meaningless without trust... if you dont trust what i say why should you trust in my tables... now why should i show you any?
can the water molecule be broken without any exchange of electrons?
Once again you try and belittle what I show as that statement has never been made before as it is an Original Idea. Why I am demanding that you show your work? The scientific method demands that I ask you for proof given in a like manor. I showed you a cost effective differential probe to get and you say it's a waste of money so I really don't expect you will even try to get a truly nice oscilloscope like that of Outlawstc or Max Miller has that have differential probes built right into the unit at a cost of around $5k USD. Show your work as you word is what is meaningless here as I have shown you mines did I not? What are you afraid of? That if you actually get a differential probe it will show the world that you are not getting 50kv to your exciter array which is 30kv over what Meyer says to be the working voltages to the exciter array?
Show us is all I am asking you to do but you come up with every excuse in the book as to why 'you' don't have to show the world your work while the rest of us do. If you need funds start a crowdfunding campaign as I am sure all of your supporters here will give you a hand at getting one as even I might donate to your crowdfunding campaign.
The bottom line is I have shown everyone my work and it has not been surpassed by anyone working in the field to this date. I have also provided my original idea so that everyone can make use of it as they go out looking to see if these things are actually taking place in the world around them. And I remind you that is an original idea so you are not going to find it printed in any of our books of antiquity hence the word Original. I didn't have to share that with anyone as I could have kept that to myself but I shared it with the hopes that others would also be able to understand how this technology actually works. Like I said the body of evidence presented to date is stacked in my favor and I am sure others will find more evidence as time goes on as all they needed was to know what to look for which is what the original idea I posted gives them.
However your words are unsettling as you say the only reason why you haven't gotten it up and working is that you are too lazy. That translates to the world doesn't have this technology right now for you are just too lazy to put in the work necessary so that the world can have this technology. These are your words not mines. Now I have a much clearer picture of the type of man that you actually are and I guess I should say thanks for providing that needed to know information about yourself to us all.
"my lazyness is the only thing between me and a working cell... " a quote from you.
Shalom,
TGS -
#35 ·
yes ´m lazy...
you welcome...
and thaNK FOR THAT IDEA that you cant make it work but its correct so if everyone know it someone will use it for `free`` and will be forever thankfull to you... ... you just make me laught too much... i cant wait to meet you one day;; you got to be a nice guy...
i´m the kind of man so lazy that dont really should waste my time or the good energy i get with this unfruitfull discussion.
-
#36 ·
yes ´m lazy...
you welcome...
and thaNK FOR THAT IDEA that you cant make it work but its correct so if everyone know it someone will use it for `free`` and will be forever thankfull to you... ... you just make me laught too much... i cant wait to meet you one day;; you got to be a nice guy...
i´m the kind of man so lazy that dont really should waste my time or the good energy i get with this unfruitfull discussion.
What idea that I can't make work are you talking about? What holds me back is far different than what holds you back as I am being held back by all the waiting times between projects as I save up for, pay, and then have to wait until things are made. Steve can even tell you just what I am waiting for right now if he wanted too but really he doesn't have to as I have mentioned just what I am waiting for so that I can proceed with my efforts to get my exciter array up and working. I showed a voltage that is just 1.2kv short of Meyer's 10kv minimum and the changes made should allow me to finally reach Meyer's working voltages for the exciter array.
But one thing is totally clear now is you now understand that ionization does in fact break the bonds of the water molecules as well as everyone else that reads that post I made. So, the doubt of rather or not this technology has anything to do with ionization should be over as like a cloud this technology has capacitive zones also and share many other things like a high voltage potential for example.
This thread ask for a formula on this technology and we broke things down to being that of hydronium and hydroxide ions. From our research it's clear that the hydronium ions are held together to strongly and we also learned that the single bond of the hydroxide ions are sad to be easily broken. Thus it is a logical conclusion that the gas production will be coming from the hydroxide ions as they are being broken down by way of ionization.
We even started planning for future experiments designed further our knowledge on rather or not the hydronium concentration will go up as a results of the process and if it does at what rate does it have towards dropping back down to a level 7 ph balance. These are being planned for in lew of Meyer's words and illustrations where Meyer talks about the reaction producing gases after it has been turned off.
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/2015-08-23_223806_zpsn84kltrl.png)
This is what we are talking about shown in this picture taken from the SMTB as the curve suggest something getting pushed out of equilibrium and then the time it takes for it be go back into equilibrium. These are the experiments we are talking about preparing for and the reasons why we feel we need to perform the experiments. If we can show a increase in the hydronimum concentration for then we know that it is the hydroxide ions that are being broken down to produce the usable fuel gases on demand with Meyer's technology.
As you can see we are moving forwards while you are still debating the tech to be ionization based or not.
Shalom,
TGS -
#37 · date not recorded
Yes ionization could break molecule... all ok, just dont put words in my mouth... i dont think meyer break the molecules thru this process, alone... if this is really ever achieved or needed...
i wont tell my theory here.. but it consist into thinking how else could i break the molecule... why would it break... and how i do it without amps...
i can tell you that when you understand my theory (stan theory) you will see
why voltage perform work ( maybe your differential probe told you that already)i had to see with my multimeter...
i proposed this experiment here a while ago but i guess no one seems to have tried it so unfortunately i have no other confirmation than my tests and tables with results...just connecting thecells in series and put a voltmeter across them and pulse the inner electrode with high freq high voltage,,, this is the same as having a differential probe with very high insulation fromground depending where are you multimeters cables and where its standing...
how the diode turns off and why it prevent electrons from shorting to the secondary
you will also see that there is no point trying to win an argument by the force... there is no difference if the gas will come out ionized or not untill it comes out and we can see how its face looks like..
only there we can put a resistor together connected from ground to a grid passing the gas thru it and see the way the current will flow...
or make it flow in a coiled tube and measure the magnetic force for example...
thats the way science really works...
the autoionization is a limited process timelimited... i have in the university of biology a friend that gives me water from a purifier i just forgot the name but costs like 30000 dollars and makes the water used for dna manipulations... they give me as much as i want... but just to you see the water start to get conductive as it gets out of the filter... the air in contact with it start to lend nitrogen to its matrix, oxygen, gases, and Co2 and others gases dissolves forming conductive electroilyte.. thats how they discovered it.. they realized that there was no way to keep taking ions out of water they would ever keep apearing and making the conductance never get to zero.
-
#38 · date not recorded
about the resonant action.. where the gas keep comming out... thats because stan said it is arranged to become as self sustained oscillation system... it mean that when he gates it the oscillation on the coils will keep going...
i will tell you one thing guys
in my opinion of a simple man the wfc is a sort of capacitor that has a capacitance leap when the gas is generated... when this happens across the cell a very high voltage apear across the cell... its analogous to change the dielectric value or forcing charged electrodes to go far from each other...
this is
sit where you are
amplification of energy
right?
so if we get the point where gas is generated and the Q factor of the system is above a certain value the system will indeed oscillate undefinately untill parameter change and its pulled out of resonance or actually up to the point where theres no more water
now you see why resonance action? do you see i´m not bla bla bla my friend?
do you see that if you ionize water it gets conductive and you kill the high voltage you are trying to put into it... at least in one point of view electric fields are also defined by the current going thru a resistive media so if you get both equations aside you see that if you get purer water is even better than filling with chemicals for example even if the chemical would distort the molecules making them weakened ...
you kill the high voltage from the inside, yes you generate a small gas since you are breaking the molecule by ionization... however as you do this you are just doing a very high brute force electrolysis... just the same... you are ionizind because there is nothing less to allow the current flow.. big deal the real big problem with electrolysis sis that you need to set an overvoltage potential and this leads the efficiency to such small factor, including polarization is what really causes the electrolysis to be unefficient... you set a potential and the cell set a backelectromotive potential that force you to add at least this amount of potential to the electron so it can win the barrier and pass thru``..
you see your ionization idea duplicate this error in a gigantic manner... HV+HIGH AMPS = HIGH POWER
YOU ARE GOOD INTENTION i value that.. i hope you just ask yourself...is there anyone in this world who maybe know something else i dont?
i guess my secret is to ask this every day to my self and try to understand what i dont!
if you leave something on for 1 second and it keeps on for 90 seconds the Q and amplification factor is very huge
i told you all this and yet didnt touched my theory.. thats because its to be released if i prove that its correct or just to tell you what i did and you can do also if you want...
my idea is not to be the hho man... i just want to make it work and put all of you in front of it and ask if you want to change the world in the way its better to be... than if you want to help great otherwise you get your water car and keep going... -
#39 · date not recorded
about the resonant action.. where the gas keep comming out... thats because stan said it is arranged to become as self sustained oscillation system... it mean that when he gates it the oscillation on the coils will keep going...
i will tell you one thing guys
in my opinion of a simple man the wfc is a sort of capacitor that has a capacitance leap when the gas is generated... when this happens across the cell a very high voltage apear across the cell... its analogous to change the dielectric value or forcing charged electrodes to go far from each other...
this is
sit where you are
amplification of energy
right?
so if we get the point where gas is generated and the Q factor of the system is above a certain value the system will indeed oscillate undefinately untill parameter change and its pulled out of resonance or actually up to the point where theres no more water
now you see why resonance action? do you see i´m not bla bla bla my friend?
do you see that if you ionize water it gets conductive and you kill the high voltage you are trying to put into it... at least in one point of view electric fields are also defined by the current going thru a resistive media so if you get both equations aside you see that if you get purer water is even better than filling with chemicals for example even if the chemical would distort the molecules making them weakened ...
you kill the high voltage from the inside, yes you generate a small gas since you are breaking the molecule by ionization... however as you do this you are just doing a very high brute force electrolysis... just the same... you are ionizind because there is nothing less to allow the current flow.. big deal the real big problem with electrolysis sis that you need to set an overvoltage potential and this leads the efficiency to such small factor, including polarization is what really causes the electrolysis to be unefficient... you set a potential and the cell set a backelectromotive potential that force you to add at least this amount of potential to the electron so it can win the barrier and pass thru``..
you see your ionization idea duplicate this error in a gigantic manner... HV+HIGH AMPS = HIGH POWER
YOU ARE GOOD INTENTION i value that.. i hope you just ask yourself...is there anyone in this world who maybe know something else i dont?
i guess my secret is to ask this every day to my self and try to understand what i dont!
if you leave something on for 1 second and it keeps on for 90 seconds the Q and amplification factor is very huge
i told you all this and yet didnt touched my theory.. thats because its to be released if i prove that its correct or just to tell you what i did and you can do also if you want...
my idea is not to be the hho man... i just want to make it work and put all of you in front of it and ask if you want to change the world in the way its better to be... than if you want to help great otherwise you get your water car and keep going...
I'll take this to my thread as I'd like massive and I to keep working together on this. -
#40 · date not recorded
Im readng george Wisemans book at the moment , in his hunt to unravel Yull Browns technology he discovered series plates , all of which are neutral .
he removed the transformer so theres no transformer loses because he was after low volts , approx 2 volt per cell .
240 vac / 2 v = 120 cells . he uses a bridge rectifier and ac caps for power supply current limiting.
so as far as electrolysis he has already raised effeciency over traditional technology and his gas out put is monatomic which has more volume .
V x I = W , by lowering V to essential level only , it is more effecient.
I was thinking last night about OH+ , being easiest bond to break . O = 8p , 8n ,8e , leaving H+ = 1p !!!!!
so is H+ an authentic chemical OR purely electrical entity OR purely theoretical
??
sounds simply stuppid but anyhoo ..... if H+ is a single proton and called a hydrogen ion then what are the 8 protons in the nucleus of the Oxygen atom??
are H+ "ions" the building blocks of the nucleus ??
(so electrons and holes is another way of picturing what is going on)
all the while focus is on SM and his invention, the other inventors must be considered at the same time , after all they achieved H gas out puts also and with out traditional electrolysis
Herman Anderson (king of the ion) , A Puharich , S Horvath .
was the output monatomic or diatomic or both or ionized gas being either ,+ ion or - ion
on that basis HOW did it get to be ionized ? that leads back to the "process" , either electrons were given or taken OR the gas was monatomic , diatomic OR both , that leads back to the "process" also
so is Oxygen , 8H+ , 8n , 8e ? proton being H+ , sounds stuppid but isnt a proton a proton ?
just a thought...
-
#41 · date not recorded
good question.. the answer is yes ... if you could take for example 2 protons out of oxygen and more 2 neutrons you would get two hydrogen atoms or even a helium atom... and would end up with nitrogen
actually after 11 minutes the neutrons decay into another two hydrogen atom with its own electron each...
this were only examples..
-
#42 · date not recorded
The hydrogen will always go to form the hydrogen molecule but the oxygen will not. Once the oxygen has depleted the oxygen molecules from which to join with and create ozone it will remain as a monatomic gas atom for a while. The reason why these monatomic oxygen gas atoms don't come together all that quickly is they all have the same charge and like charges repel, correct?
A long time ago this got me to thinking about just what was creating all of this excess energy and it dawned on me that the oxygen atom is responsible for this in Meyer's technology as it has far more electrons to lose and Meyer is actually targeting them to take away up to 4-5 electrons away from the oxygen atoms prior to using them for the creation of the water molecules by being spark ignited in the presence of hydrogen.
Once the reaction is started these two atoms must form the water molecules but they can't as the oxygen atom is missing electrons. Meyer called this extended time prolonging the formation of the water molecules as once the reaction was started these atoms have to come up with the missing electrons from the zero point. It is here where all of the excess energy comes from as E=MC2 tells us the energy given off for the creation of these missing electrons as the electrons have mass.
Give this some thought...
Shalom,
TGS -
#43 · date not recorded
Checking the literature to see what is already known in a given field is part of the Scientific Method. doobie was using the Scientific Method when he found the information about lightning splitting water, as evidenced by the red component of the glowing discharge. Now that Ed Mitchel has accepted this information as valid, here's a question for him:
Why is the spark from a worn out ignition coil red?
It's because the coil isn't producing any amps, just voltage. So this voltage, only, must be splitting a little of the water present in air as humidity. Right?
I found out a long time ago how to get a red discharge from my Plasmoid circuit. I wasn't using any Scientific Method. I was just experimenting at random, and made an accidental discovery. That's how I work, and that's the Method I use. I'm good at making accidental discoveries. Isn't this still valid to Stan Meyer's system? Remember that Plasmoid produces an IONIZING RADIATION, red or otherwise.
Whether or not I share this information depends on someone else's attitude. -
#44 ·
Checking the literature to see what is already known in a given field is part of the Scientific Method. doobie was using the Scientific Method when he found the information about lightning splitting water, as evidenced by the red component of the glowing discharge. Now that Ed Mitchel has accepted this information as valid, here's a question for him:
Why is the spark from a worn out ignition coil red?
It's because the coil isn't producing any amps, just voltage. So this voltage, only, must be splitting a little of the water present in air as humidity. Right?
I found out a long time ago how to get a red discharge from my Plasmoid circuit. I wasn't using any Scientific Method. I was just experimenting at random, and made an accidental discovery. That's how I work, and that's the Method I use. I'm good at making accidental discoveries. Isn't this still valid to Stan Meyer's system? Remember that Plasmoid produces an IONIZING RADIATION, red or otherwise.
Whether or not I share this information depends on someone else's attitude.
All will be ignored from you as you are not a friend but the opposite and I truly do not feel comfortable talking to you. -
#45 · date not recorded
Likewise, I will stop reading your messages and any message which quotes your message. You've accused me of being a racist too many times, always ignoring my answer. Now you're spelling my user name with a KKK. In light of your prior behavior, this can be nothing but a slanderous reference to the Klu Klux Klan, the racial hate group.Checking the literature to see what is already known in a given field is part of the Scientific Method. doobie was using the Scientific Method when he found the information about lightning splitting water, as evidenced by the red component of the glowing discharge. Now that Ed Mitchel has accepted this information as valid, here's a question for him:
Why is the spark from a worn out ignition coil red?
It's because the coil isn't producing any amps, just voltage. So this voltage, only, must be splitting a little of the water present in air as humidity. Right?
I found out a long time ago how to get a red discharge from my Plasmoid circuit. I wasn't using any Scientific Method. I was just experimenting at random, and made an accidental discovery. That's how I work, and that's the Method I use. I'm good at making accidental discoveries. Isn't this still valid to Stan Meyer's system? Remember that Plasmoid produces an IONIZING RADIATION, red or otherwise.
Whether or not I share this information depends on someone else's attitude.
All will be ignored from you as you are not a friend but the opposite and I truly do not feel comfortable talking to you. -
#46 ·
placing water between 2 conductive plates cant be called electrolysis because the water has pH7 to begin with .
water charge is neutral , net zero
anions and cations are of equal number
there is no additive , acid or base
anion OH- (9p , 10e) and cation H3O+ (11p , 10e) = self ionization
only the self ionization formula fits
I cant find any formula or study of break down of water out side of electrolysis , which is a contamination of a simple experiment which thousands of people must have performed in the last 17 years alone , using straight water
Faraday would most certainly have performed his initial first experiment ,without any additive .
all the argument against H2 as a fuel always falls back on Electrolysis but once the additive is removed , theres no basic experiment out there to say for or against
-
#47 · date not recorded
if you compare this to electrolysis is like comparing semiconductor to metals..
in semiconductors there can be positive and negative charge carrier or both... in metals only electrons conducts...
in water is like on a semiconductor... if you get only positive ions inside it will conduct... so as if you had negative ions... or if you had both...
or do you think that neutralizing the acidity would lead to zero current?
well we could test it... get it very pure water mix with acid and test the conductivity... than add base to neutralize the ph and we would have neutral ph... but the point is it would conduct however...
ph is only the proportion between the positive and negative ions in the water latice... not how many net ions...
if we consider that we have both base and acid in equal proportion why should the electrolyte heat if the ions does not need to cross the cell...
this are some questions i have too..
what happens when we mix a saturated base solution with a acid solution... very huge heat come out...
-
#48 · date not recorded
placing water between 2 conductive plates cant be called electrolysis because the water has pH7 to begin with .
water charge is neutral , net zero
anions and cations are of equal number
there is no additive , acid or base
anion OH- (9p , 10e) and cation H3O+ (11p , 10e) = self ionization
only the self ionization formula fits
I cant find any formula or study of break down of water out side of electrolysis , which is a contamination of a simple experiment which thousands of people must have performed in the last 17 years alone , using straight water
Faraday would most certainly have performed his initial first experiment ,without any additive .
all the argument against H2 as a fuel always falls back on Electrolysis but once the additive is removed , theres no basic experiment out there to say for or against
Do a google search on impact dissociation of water. There's a lot of non-electrolysis work out there. This also includes OH splitting on impact with an electrode, or even a particle of water. It's known that Hydroxyl ions occur naturally in water. Couldn't a few of them be accelerated to produce an ion cascade? "Instantly"?
Sign in to reply, or ask for an account.