this is going nowhere
wrong on elemental hydrogen...it is produced as an adsorbed species on the surface of the electrode... you've read the wrong books, I'm afraid.... study some advanced electrochemistry and report back.. Bockris & Reddy come to mind
this discussion is pointless as the end result is beyond practical reach and you're convinced you're Altotus
wrong on elemental hydrogen...it is produced as an adsorbed species on the surface of the electrode... you've read the wrong books, I'm afraid.... study some advanced electrochemistry and report back.. Bockris & Reddy come to mind
this discussion is pointless as the end result is beyond practical reach and you're convinced you're Altotus
Yeah, if you want to call an adsorbed intermediate a product, go ahead. A lack of a full valence in a pool of friendly atoms means that it exists for a short enough time to be meaningless as a "product". It's very rare for a species that only exists in an intermediate step in a reaction mechanism to be referred to as a product.
Also, this doesn't change the fact that it requires two moles of electrons, not one, to decompose one mole of water by electrolysis.
And it definitely doesn't change the fact that I wasn't talking about electrolysis initially.
EDIT: And yes, I agree that there's too many practical problems for him to feasibly accomplish this at home, by resonance or electrolysis.
Also, this doesn't change the fact that it requires two moles of electrons, not one, to decompose one mole of water by electrolysis.
And it definitely doesn't change the fact that I wasn't talking about electrolysis initially.
EDIT: And yes, I agree that there's too many practical problems for him to feasibly accomplish this at home, by resonance or electrolysis.
I don't know a whole lot about chemistry, but my GF takes a chemistry class at UC Berkeley and she was telling me that mass has no relation to chemical reaction. I guess this wouldn't apply to resonating energy but perhaps there is a way to trigger a chain-reaction through stimulation of water molecules via resonance or other means. Perhaps increasing the salinity of the water (as suggested by others) would help destabilize the target. In essence, you wouldn't need to resonate the entire mass of water but just an amount large enough to initiate a chain-reaction-fracturing of the water molecules.
Hi.
Can't believe this thread is still alive, but seeing that it is, here is a different angle - Bacteria:
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/11/13/2052249.shtml
Michael
Can't believe this thread is still alive, but seeing that it is, here is a different angle - Bacteria:
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/11/13/2052249.shtml
Michael
Water Hydrogen Oxygen resonance
So the question remains, how is the resonant frequency of water, or even hydrogen or oxygen molecules, determined anyway?
So far I have found loose references... the resonant frequency of hydrogen to be about 45khz (but I think it should be in the ghz range, eh?). I read somewhere else that the lowest resonance of the water molecule is 22.235 GHz [a microwave oven operates at about 2.45 ghz].
How is the column length for the covalent bonds measured, and then how is the resonant freq calculation assembled?
and/or
How is the column length for the proton displacement, hydrogen to oxygen, determined, and then how would the resonance freq calculation be assembled?
Which approach is relevant? I.e., what is the logic for vibrating the water molecule so that it elongates across its covalent bond?
Where else is this being discussed?
Lastly, considering that temperature is a factor, and we know that at some low temp the dialectric of water is about 80, lets simply assume for now either low temp, or not to exceed 180 degrees, os something like that.
Bottomline... I want to understand how to deduce and perform the calculation for resonance of a compound (like water) and for an atom (such as oxygen or hydrogen).
So the question remains, how is the resonant frequency of water, or even hydrogen or oxygen molecules, determined anyway?
So far I have found loose references... the resonant frequency of hydrogen to be about 45khz (but I think it should be in the ghz range, eh?). I read somewhere else that the lowest resonance of the water molecule is 22.235 GHz [a microwave oven operates at about 2.45 ghz].
How is the column length for the covalent bonds measured, and then how is the resonant freq calculation assembled?
and/or
How is the column length for the proton displacement, hydrogen to oxygen, determined, and then how would the resonance freq calculation be assembled?
Which approach is relevant? I.e., what is the logic for vibrating the water molecule so that it elongates across its covalent bond?
Where else is this being discussed?
Lastly, considering that temperature is a factor, and we know that at some low temp the dialectric of water is about 80, lets simply assume for now either low temp, or not to exceed 180 degrees, os something like that.
Bottomline... I want to understand how to deduce and perform the calculation for resonance of a compound (like water) and for an atom (such as oxygen or hydrogen).
Ohhh cool, I wonder if you could increase the efficiency of those round disks by putting them in a sphere-like formation, reducing the electrical input to each device, and dropping the water into that sphere drop by drop so that it gets maximum exposure. Maybe I'm just talking out my ***, but I think it would work more efficiently.
theAnonymous1 is right. We have had hydrogen powered vehicles for well over a century. It's never a question of whether cars can run on hydrogen, but a question of whether the actual operating cost is less than gasoline.
Notice on that website there are other links to other hydrogen/water powered car. And in this case I mean cars when you literally add water as fuel.
This means nothing unless they tell us the direct cost per mile to run these cars.
Still, I hope someone can actually do it, make an energy efficient car that crack water into its constituent parts and runs of the resulting gases.
Steve/bluewizard
Notice on that website there are other links to other hydrogen/water powered car. And in this case I mean cars when you literally add water as fuel.
This means nothing unless they tell us the direct cost per mile to run these cars.
Still, I hope someone can actually do it, make an energy efficient car that crack water into its constituent parts and runs of the resulting gases.
Steve/bluewizard
The two dumbest people on Earth are those that believe everything and those that believe nothing. Both are magical thoughts.
Meyer was for the most part pretty clear about his technology except for one part - the piezo devices used to limit current flow.
On the bottom of the center tubes you see a bolt extending down. The bolt is a piezo device in a form actually called a bolt. A piezo is a dielectric and this is what prevented current flow. The only current in the water was the displacement current between electrodes.
This is why he called it hydrogen "fracturing" and not the common method of electrochemical electrolysis. I have photos of all his last stuff and he used a titanium resonator in the last products instead of piezo and set up a capacitor like cell instead of the original tube design.
Two things keep people from understanding Meyer:
1. Meyer's technology changed and he patented every known method.
2. Some people don't understand that cavitation converts mass into the atomic energy contained within he mass.
Trust me, there is a whole world beyond what the kids from chemistry class know. There is an exception to the law of force that allows this and thermodynamics does not apply to cavitation and mass to atomic energy conversion.
The universe stored massive amounts of energy in mass when it was created from two longitudinal waves. Mass is really just a spinning lump of energy.
The H2 to H1 transmute took place in Meyer's injector and produced what Meyer called "greater than normal energy" output. Connect the ground to the tip of a hydroxy torch and a small plasma to the flame and you will see the effect of a much bigger flame since the positive wire extracts electrons from the H2. That was basically Meyer's electron extraction circuit.
Meyer was for the most part pretty clear about his technology except for one part - the piezo devices used to limit current flow.
On the bottom of the center tubes you see a bolt extending down. The bolt is a piezo device in a form actually called a bolt. A piezo is a dielectric and this is what prevented current flow. The only current in the water was the displacement current between electrodes.
This is why he called it hydrogen "fracturing" and not the common method of electrochemical electrolysis. I have photos of all his last stuff and he used a titanium resonator in the last products instead of piezo and set up a capacitor like cell instead of the original tube design.
Two things keep people from understanding Meyer:
1. Meyer's technology changed and he patented every known method.
2. Some people don't understand that cavitation converts mass into the atomic energy contained within he mass.
Trust me, there is a whole world beyond what the kids from chemistry class know. There is an exception to the law of force that allows this and thermodynamics does not apply to cavitation and mass to atomic energy conversion.
The universe stored massive amounts of energy in mass when it was created from two longitudinal waves. Mass is really just a spinning lump of energy.
The H2 to H1 transmute took place in Meyer's injector and produced what Meyer called "greater than normal energy" output. Connect the ground to the tip of a hydroxy torch and a small plasma to the flame and you will see the effect of a much bigger flame since the positive wire extracts electrons from the H2. That was basically Meyer's electron extraction circuit.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.