Water instead of Gasoline - Crisis over / Magnetic Energy
Offline FYI -
ENERGY FROM WATER
HHO gas powered cars
Run Your Car On Water - inventor killed...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHT0hBgVOw
HHO gas Water fuel
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hho+gas&search_type=
Stanley Meyer maybe good murdered ???
HHO Gas Stanley Meyer Experimental Circuit Experiment - Prev
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k97o_42Xa4A
HHO OxyHydrogen Generator Demonstration - Unit 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-eSniFWX3g&feature=related
www. HappyMileage dot com
__________________________________
Magnetic Engine [ 300 H.P. ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8LaVH-pn0&NR=1
GMC REMAT COLD MOTOR RARE EARTH MAGNETIC ENGINE 2500 RPM (SQUARE WAVE) OPERATING A GENERATOR APPROVED BY GMC AND REMAT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Lnhs7caCo&NR=1
Pulse Motor
Overunity Motor - Generator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhcS5OgRBk&feature=related
Overunity Magnet Motor #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2sD_5q96L0&feature=related
Magnetic Over Unity Motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppp0xrvQDhE&feature=related
new engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEbztw3pW3A&feature=related
- Login to post comments
KILL ALL LIES
burning some h2o
School Girl , Alvin Lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i07SahQl5w
carbon based motors , H2o injected ...... !
H20 on FIRE !
Atheism Books.
Yeah, I get it, the resonance doesn't occur in liquids, because they're not solid, they're fluid. It looks like you see this idea as shaking a container of water, hoping that it becomes a flammable gas. This is of course a nonsense. But are you sure, that it is the case of Meyer's cell?
What is "solid" in a fluid water, are the molecules itself, they are, as far as I know, quite solidly placed, they have an exact angle between them...
Can you make three balls, solidly connected together, (atoms) resonate with each other? If yes, can it be done with millions of other identic molecules around?
Remember, a molecular level. We don't have to make the water resonate as such, just some of it's molecules.
So, what about this?
Yeah...but every time I gain a bit of confidence in science (and it's ability to explain things), I remember the case of telekinesis I saw, Tesla's tablets I have, or material-etheric sensitivity I have too. I will be most glad, when a time comes for scientists to discover this, maybe I will even cut my white full beard for ten inches.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
The system can only produce an significant boost if the gas produced is somehow dramatically different from a simple mixture of perfectly normal (diatomic) hydrogen and oxygen, as is normally produced by electrolysis. This gas would have to somehow release much more energy than the normal mixture generated. I saw at least one account where they measured the density of the mysterious gas, actually trying to show that it had to be different from the normal mixture we get from electrolysis. However the figure they reported (12.3 grams/mole) was only slightly higher than the 12 gm/mole of an normal mix, not inconsistent with it containing a significant amount of water vapour (now how could that get there
). Ironically they claimed the normal mix was 11.3 gm/mole, a simple error of arithmetic.
This measured density was entirely within the range that might be expected of a mix of standard hydrogen and oxygen, perhaps with a small error of measurement, not too unusual, after all you can't just measure gas density by placing the gas on a set of scales like a solid object.
It also is quite inconsistent with the H and O being combined in some wierd variation on a normal water molecule - no matter how the atoms were arranged, we should see a figure very close to that of ordinary H2O, namely 18 gm/mole.
I used to play with electrolysis a lot at high school age. I even bought a couple of pieces of platinum wire - purchased by the inch for a significant chunk of my pocket money. You need either carbon or preferably platinum for the anode, ordinary metals (copper or iron) just were eroded away into the solution created a gunk of iron or copper compounds. Frequently capture the mix in small plastic containers and holding a lighted match at the opening , resulting in a satisfying loud pop. Once filled a medium-sized metal container with a screw top and ignited it electrically from a safe distance. Nice bang and the can opened up almost flat. But nowhere near as spectacular as one could expect if I'd filled the can with gunpowder (another chemical mix I experimented with).
The only plausible mechanism for a modest improvement in efficiency is that mixing in some of this gas mixture in with the gasoline/air mix may lead to more efficient combustion.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What did I just say?
a) The natural frequency of every single molecule in the water will vary with each other molecule and be constantly changing over time, because the water molecules have no equilibrium position.
b) Even if you could make a few molecules resonate here and there, you would at best break several of the hydrogen bonds holding them together...which would simply reform after the molecules disappated. EIther that or the molecules would have enough energy to escape to the surface as water vapour.
c) Even if you could strike the natural frequency of some of the molecules, it would only be for an instant because the natural frequency will be constantly changing, and you would only hit the instantaneous resonance frequency for a few molecules. In a 1L tank of water, there are approximately 3.34x10^25 molecules.
d) In short, trying to get several of the molecules to resonate, for an instant, to break some hydrogen bonds, which will reform immediately, is not worth the effort.
Yes. I am simply repeating what you told me, and what the pdf said. You can read the PDF yourself. I quoted it above. According to you, and the PDF, you are trying to use the principle of resonanec to break liquid water into its constituents, using an electrical signal generator to match the resonance frequency of water and break the bonds that hold a water molecule together. I'm telling you now, this is not possible.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
You guys were really missing the point of my question here. I was attempting to point out that the energy required to make the hydrogen makes this a fair less efficient and much dirtier process than it is being presented as. Unless you have a clean source of energy to make the fuel, you could be doing more harm than good.
Currently hydrolysis is less efficient than refining petrol, and if the power used in the hydrolysis comes from a coal plant, you are creating more pollution than a simple conventional engine would have.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Thanks everyone. Science is always on trial ! I have a zillion science questions ! Ask, guess, explore .... and please kill all detected dogma on sight !
Yeah Yellow, getting Hydrogen gas, the way it's often done now, is indeed polluting. Go Go, anti pollution science.
Hey DeludedGod, (etc) Whats the difference between magnetism, magnets, and gravity, in language a 12 yr old might understand ??? ME Seriously Confused ( and my kids ! )
And is this true related to "Overunity"motors? ..... If I had the means, I could create a seemingly long running perpetual motion device, such as a bearing free Solar System, in open free space, and to a even better degree, the more I can escape gravitation influence?
Magnets offer energy that we do use and will further perfect.
YEAH, So where are the simple magnet toys, that never ever stop moving ??? Easy $$$, but they don't exist ..... !!!! What's that tell us !!!!
______________________________
Bright Bob Spence wrote, regarding "Gas for cars from Water": "The only plausible mechanism for a modest improvement in efficiency is that mixing in some of this gas mixture in with the gasoline/air mix may lead to more efficient combustion." /////////
The only HHO dealer with a phone #, and address I found so far???, ( as invisibility is a clear signal of internet fraud ) , I will link below. Lives in L.A. , from Israel ... He's saying "juice the petrol with hydrogen" with this simple extraction devise. He offers a phone #, address, Saturday get togethers, large web site, and a 7 day free online "course", which out of curiosity, I signed up for. WTF ??? Master of fraud?
Google, Water4Gas , Phone # 818 720 0167 L.A. ( go ghost busters, but wait, is that a GHOST? .... asks QM !
___________________________________
Safe Atomic Energy ? This really interests me, as I imagine future applied "super" matter/energy conversions.
Google, Lithium French Reactor
___________________________________ *
..... Buddha: Be extra super duper nice to yourselves, and send smiles to EVERYONE. LIFE IS FREE .... Why worry about GAWED shit and why ?!!!! ASK HOW!
Atheism Books.
In classical physics, Gravity and Magnetism are forces that are caused by objects acting on and being acted on by fields. Very roughly, a field is a hypothetical concept whereby some magnitude of quantity of an object can indirectly exert force on an object which is not in proximity to it. Gravity is an attractive force whereby massive bodies ("massive" meaning having mass and "bodies" simply meaning objects) will exert a force on each other. The attractive force experienced by both bodies will be given by the following:
F=GMm/r^2
Where M is the mass of Body 1, m is the mass of body 2, G is the gravitational constant and r is the Euclidean distance between them. This is called Newton's inverse square law, because gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies.
A gravitational field is one of four types of fields in classical physics: Electric, magnetic, electromagnetic and gravitational. In the case of an electric field, the quantity upon which the force being exerted depends is charge, and objects can exert a repulsive or attractive force. That's pretty much where the differences stop as far as the mathematics are concerned, as shown by Coloumb's law:
F=kQq/r^2
Where k is the Coulomb constant given by:
k=1/4pi(epsilon)
Epsilon is the permittivity of the medium. It is the degree to which the medium allows the transfer of electrical energy, and hence how it "permits" an electric field. 4pi r^2 will be the surface area of the sphere of influence of the charge. If we consider some charge which exerts a certain force, it will exert a unidirectional force over its sphere of influence. The force felt by another object in the field is inversely proportional to the square of its distance from the other charge.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
DG, I was seeing the math design we are using a little better, THANKS for that , no kidding, love ya, YOU are insight ! Damn I like this Math shit ! Like a new discovery for me. I feel like a virgin ! .... Born Again !
I am still confused ! The basics of M/E fucking gravity and all the rest of it .....
I WANT MY FREE ENERGY , god damn it ....
Computing ! F , force, gravity, distance, written in math, Square of !
F=GMm/r^2
Where M is the mass of Body 1, m is the mass of body 2, G is the gravitational constant and r is the Euclidean distance between them. This is called Newton's inverse square law, because gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies.
Brain Cells Dancing with numbers
FEELS GOOD
got to get my steps together !
ALL IS FREE I SAY , learn the math of Everything !
ONE
of many parts
DETAILS
Go Science
Kill Religion
please please
Atheism Books.
Haha!
"Don't make me turn this car around!"
No trickery
Finger pointing at the moon.
Even the moon, and galaxy is not truly Overunity !
I still recommend playing with them wild magnets ! Pulse electric motor boosters for magnet motors ???
Forget the word FREE !!!! Think "improved" ..... 
Atheism Books.