Sorry, I didn't intend my reply to come off as name calling. I said newbie because his post count is/was 1. Not that he knows nothing about Hydrogen, just his experience here on this board.

 

Its not so much as name calling as , I got to this thread late , lots of reading , lots of good info , then it got to my turn to comment/question , and the track changed direction for a moment , [ when we get older thats harder ] & I have done the same when somebody poo-poo's an idea [ I've been looking at bio ]
Besides all that , somebodies got to keep the facts from coming instead of basing on opinion's/beliefs .
Criticism is what keeps us on track .

 

Someone showed me a link to a site , that had 3 different energy points , 1 was a none electrolysis method for hydrogen from water , called it runs on water .
Its a 1 hr. report on the 3 , about 20min. each .


Here's the link . http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...39837181538044
Equinox - It Runs on Water (Free Energy - 1995) - Google Video

 

I've heard alot about the non electrolysis method. Just requires more specialized stuff. I'll look at it again though. Thanks for the link.

 

Your slap at me personally was both childish and unfounded. Who said I cannot cope with disagreement? No, disagreement that is suportive and positive is welcomed, but someone who simply pee's in everyone's pool is something else entirely.

The fact is simple: All H & O input reduces the amounts of PETROL required to accomplish the same goal. This equals a savings; whether it is a penny or a dollar. Whether or not you think it is a profitable enough idea to pursue personally is not the issue... the issue is that someone here built something that they feel works, and they got excited and wanted to share it with others. Those others then liked the idea and wanted to try it themselves.

Be positive and support their excitement. Encourage their efforts at discovery. Stand behind these, your fellow scientists, who are attempting what you dare not: OR simply leave them alone, and stop trying to bully them with your scepticism and self designated authority. The fact is simple... it worked 100 years ago, and it works now. The plans for carburators that did this effectively were awarded full patents in the 1930's; so the US Government has already established the validity and feasibility of the concept.

In case you did not understand the point of that last statement, it means you lose the arguement. The US Government says it works. Their scientists say you are wrong in all of your oppinions. They are smarter than you, and probably wrote the text books you used in school.

The fact is that the entire automotive industry changed in the mid 50's to stop this concept from being re-applied. That is why they switched from DC generators to AC Alternators in their vehicles.

I think it is funny that you would attempt to discredit my post by pointing to assumptions of my employment and political views, and then imply that I do not know what I am talking about simply because of this is my first post here. How very typical.

What is funnier still is that you then admit that the details of my post are in fact 100% correct about YOU. You work in THE industry where even if you did agree with this concept, you could not openly support it in its presented form... you would lose your job. Thus as I said before, you are horribly biased against this subject, as to support it would be a conflict of interests for you at a fundamental level. Your input is therefore at best worthy of extreme scrutiny as it cannot be open and honest.

Furthermore, just by your continued resistance we can deduce that we are on the right track, because if you were not so worried that this would actually work you would not fight it, but wait for it to fail so people would stop doing it.

AS John said, drop the chain and let us run.

The fact that SO MANY people, world wide, ARE continuing to do it, means that it works to some degree... and that is exciting to anyone... except those of you who stand to lose when we succeed... which we will.

The point you keep missing in all these posts is that people around you ARE SUCCEEDING at what you call an imposibility. The funny part about your objections is the total lack of scientific substantiation for your claims. You have not personally compared the experiments and chemical proccess involved, but rather choose to sit back and regurgitate something you heard or read in some book in school where another very biased individual claimed it could not be true... yet you have not attempted it yourself.

When someone's experiments bring a good report people like you confuse the issue with a bunch of numbers and fodder that sounds important simply to disrupt and distract from the results that were presented.

And that is the last energy I will burn to comment on the negative stuff.

On a personal note:

You are 100% wrong about me. I am a business owner. I am not under the financial control of anyone. I make a living working mechanical and electrical miracles. I am probably in the national top 100 of those who work in my field. When I was on the West Coast I was told by more than one top 10 corporation that I was the highest qualified Technician North of San Jose.

As for my education level, My ACT scores were in the top 1% nationally. My IQ is well over 170. I was offered a full scholarship to GMI right out of high school. I was offered a full scholarship to the Rolla Corp of Engineering the same year. I was raised working on engines, and electronics. And have designed engines that would make your head swim.

Now back to the topic....

I personally think the error in the efficiency of the concept is painfully obvious and simple and I am enjoying waiting and watching for the announcement of the "discovery" of the key reconfiguration that must take place to make it work, simply because I enjoy watching others "discover" things. I doubt that I shall see the day as the only scientists actively working in this field are of limited finances and they will likely never succeed in a total system redesign for that reason, but if anyone SHOULD be able to discover the secret it should be here in this group.

As for the issue of multiplying the H output:

The problem has always been that very few people cross the barriers from one line of effort to another, and thus they gain limited results. You must look at this as a diamond. The more angles you are putting into play the prettier the results look.

All of those who have succeeded at developing 100% water burning vehicles had 1 major thing in common in their designs... identify that common thread and you will have a major key. Ignore it and you will have very limited results.

The most successful of them leaned toward the following concept which I have simplified and made funny to explain.

I have a simple subject for all my fellow discoverers... "Sympathetic Vibratory Physics." Hydrogen likes music. The first step is in identifying the musical harmonics that H responds to. H likes Acid Rock, while O likes classical Opera. Get the picture? Play the right music and you will instantly dissociate the pair.

As for the basic electrolosis issue, there are more ways than one to skin the cat (sorry fluffy). The idea of a DC pulse system is worthless if you do not know or cannot reach the proper frequencies. You former military types understand this in marching terms... we never march across a bridge... we always do a plain walk. The answer to this is the answer to everything.



Smurf

 

Never was trying to run on straight hydrogen. No spark in a diesel to make it burn without the diesel starting the fire. As to volume you can only add so much without timeing and fuel changes to get the best improvements. I've talked to some of the performance companies and so far no one has made a box to retard timeing so more hydrogen would be more usefull. Like I've said before if you increase timeing from stock the hydrogen is useless in my experience.
I've read all about the frequency stuff but why spend the money on extra stuff when you don't need it. Unless you can retard the timeing.
Oppinions are plentifull more negative than positive normally. It's the real world more look down than up. They are trained that way in most schools, just fit in. If you stand out everyone attackes you.

 

Smurf - That sure is a bunch of mis-leading jibber-jabber. I've met people like you (an oral hurricane), so I know its not worth worrying or arguing about. Lots of rambling drivel that runs around in circles, lots of noise, a big spectical, and after you're done, there's nothing but a mess and confusion.

I really have no idea what it is that I'm trying to cover up here at work, like you say. And I had no idea I was afraid to discuss whatever it is that I'm covering up because I was afraid of losing my job.

I'm not sure what argument I lost, and never said that you don't know your stuff about Hydrogen. The newbie comment is based on your post count. Your post count is fact. Even if you were Einstein, if your post count is 1, then you ARE a DTR newbie.


Tree Dr - If I've not been clear I apologize. I believe you 100% that adding Hydrogen will produce a combustible combination. And, as I've said in the past (I think), adding some additional combustable to the air/fuel charge would create a condition of substituting air/diesel for Hydrogen. Therefore using less diesel. That's what is done with propane systems as far as I know.

Sorry I don't have the time to put toward researching this issue. Even if I did have time, research is not what floats my boat. I'm glad there are guys like you ... society needs guys like you. And yes, all my replies have been from opinion. I have been watching your thread in regard to how "adding Hydrogen," may apply to me. Because it seems to me that your end result would be to have some "product" (not necessarily to sell, but maybe so) to share with others that would increase their fuel mileage.

I think (opinion here) its feasible, that something could be created and of course that you are on the right path.

My whole point from the beginning is that (opinion again) it would only make sense (to me) that a more substantial quantity of Hydrogen would need to be produced and efficiently carried to the intake. A smaller type container you have (so far) seems like it would (of course) create Hydrogen, and volume wise, a decent amount of Hydrogen. But compared to the exponentially greater amount of air passing through the intake, I believe your additional Hydrogen is negligible. My basis for my opinion is that your additional fuel mileage (factual statement with no data to back it up on my part) could be the result of one of, or a combination of several other variables. That being so, there's no proof that your Hydrogen system is having anything other than a non-negligible effect, so far. Again, I'm not saying that your system is NOT working. I'm saying it's not effective enough (yet).

I'm not an expert here. This IS my opinion. It is meant as constructive critisizm, not meant to shoot you down, make you quit, or aid in the cover up of some government or corporate cover up (from Smurf) .

I continue to look forward to your progress. I think the outcome you are trying to achieve is valuable and admirable. I'm done with informational hurricanes though.

- JyRO

 

One thread then an other , if we let ourself s get upset , then we lose the thread , thats what I just read on an other post thats getting long in the tooth , that has a lot of good info , and its getting a little heated , hopefully we do not lose either .
Anybody ever read a poem called IF ?
If you can keep your head about you while others are losing theres .
Its a lot longer , but hopefully the idea gets out there .

 

I wanted to separate the 2 points , my earlier link about a none electrolysis method of producing H , was it seemed a catilist , the inventor put a mechanizem that goes into the fuel tank , a few days after looking at this I saw a program on public TV , that use a metal pellet inside of the hull of something els , microscopic , then many in a tank and the combination of those separated the H ,
Sorry about the ambiguous description , but I am not as involved in the science as I'ld like to be , maybe theres a job at an inventors workshop .
Hopefully someone has some connections to the Nova program , I'll see if I can find a link .

 

No worries John, I will not pursue his negative banter.

Smurf

 

JyRO
I agree with your thinking. I wish I had a better way to varify what I've found. Biggest thing I've got is experience with dodge diesels. Eight counting this one.

 

Eight! Holy Cow! I'm still working with #1. I'm in my 8th year with it.

 

I went to the PBS site but could not find the link to the program that talked about the micro pellets for making H .
But while was looking I can across this , saw before , this older couple has a few solutions to battery , H storage ect.
I realy miss having a shop to play in , I would be there all time if I could , lots of Ideas to build .

http://www.pbs.org/science/
PBS | Science

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/features/ovshinsky.htm
Scientific American Frontiers . Hydrogen Hopes . Meet the Ovshinskys | PBS

 

Just changed my signature to reflect the 8.

Thanks John for the link. I've talked with and to lots of people doing simular things with hydrogen. Storage is a major problem for hydrogen powered vehicles. Since I'm not useing hydrogen as my main source of fuel there is no need for storage. Make it on demand. If I had a lab and the resources to get all the equipment needed to do testing. Then I could probably find the exact amount needed for optimum efficiency at any given load and altitude and fuel type. I could computer regulate voltage and frequency to get the right amounts of H to make it work. Each Dodge diesel I've driven had different performance quirks. My second 97 with the stock pump plate slid all the way to the front and the afc opened up, out did the other 97 and 98 moded the same way. Each engin runs differently. Probably why the the performance modes used today have varying affects on each truck.

 

Does the Inventor care to share the frequency at which the molecular bonds between hydrogen and oxygen (in the liquid-phase) are broken?