Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

http://tesla-coin.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Water Fuel This forum is for discussion on any water fuel topic dealing with electrolysis, Stanley Meyer, hho, Brown's Gas, Puharich, etc...

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 09-23-2010, 11:49 AM
nvisser's Avatar
nvisser nvisser is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South Africa
Posts: 755
Send a message via Skype™ to nvisser
Thank you Mike
This clears up most of my questions
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #62  
Old 09-23-2010, 12:19 PM
Slovenia Slovenia is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,668
Updated PDF File

I have attached the updated file of, "The Non Electrolytic Splitting Of The Water Molecule" thread.

Updated Doc with Energetic Forum link has just been uploaded.

Latest File Was Updated Through February 13, 2011 & Uploaded February 13, 2011.
__________________
 

Last edited by Slovenia; 09-22-2011 at 01:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-23-2010, 08:05 PM
Farrah Day Farrah Day is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 481
Hi Mike

I've been following with interest, wondering where this thread will end up going. I see there is a keen and eager following, but I also see that no one is asking the right questions.

I know you and many others consider me to be a prize 'thorn in the side', but I learned long ago to question everything and not to trust the answers to those questions until they are verified as fact. And nowhere does this philosophy apply more than on these forums, so you'll forgive me for never taking anyone at their word.

The only thing I'm aware of similar to what you are here stating is science fact, is the Kanzius discovery, but of course he used brine and we know 13.56MHz.

Are you saying that this can happen with just plain water? If so, exactly what reactions do you suggest are taking place to produce hydrogen and oxygen... and why? I did ask, but you never answered about whether the water was being caused to ionise. You see I can understand the water being induced to ionise by EMR, but that does not itself give rise to hydrogen and oxygen, so how are the gases being produced?

Looking at what people are posting it seems that everyone simply thinks that water will fall apart into oxygen and hydrogen when exposed to so many MHz of EMR. I find it really hard to fathom why no one is questioning - or even considering - the chemistry.

Now, being a stickler for details, you said that this is not theory but fact, so have you a link to anything that can support this statement... or is this to be taken on blind faith?

I would really appreciate a considered response to my questions... after all you do say it is science fact.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-23-2010, 10:12 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
@ Faraday

You have answered your own question as far as who has done this with Rf and it was not only with salt water, it was tested with other water formulas as well. The frequency was mixed and heterodyned in the salt water and other chemical mixes also proved to work but at different degrees.

A brine solution works well with radio frequencies and is one of the best in what I have shown, although other chemical compounds will work as well. Pure distilled water does not work, you need a crystaline compound, this does not form any other gas, it is a catalyst and remains in the water molecule. Copper sulphate also works, it is all to do with the absorbtion of the radio waves and not reflection.

Puharich was the first and he used also brine at a concentration equal to sea water. Meyer in the end copied Puharich but tried to disguise it. I have copied to a certain extent but have changed certain things that work better for me.

You really need to read Puharich very well, he gives quite an honest description, but his reasons are a little flawed on what was happening or that was his security. The trick is if I can call it that, the heterodyning has to be done in the water and not before, it is the absorbtion of the two RF signals that creates this and breaks those bonds as I have explained before.

I think that other frequencies can be used, I have chosen VHF and UHF as I am well conversed as I am a radio ham, G6GVA in England, but since changed as I live in Spain, you can look up my call sign if you like.

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-24-2010, 12:18 AM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
@ Faraday

You have answered your own question as far as who has done this with Rf and it was not only with salt water, it was tested with other water formulas as well. The frequency was mixed and heterodyned in the salt water and other chemical mixes also proved to work but at different degrees.

A brine solution works well with radio frequencies and is one of the best in what I have shown, although other chemical compounds will work as well. Pure distilled water does not work, you need a crystaline compound, this does not form any other gas, it is a catalyst and remains in the water molecule. Copper sulphate also works, it is all to do with the absorbtion of the radio waves and not reflection.

Puharich was the first and he used also brine at a concentration equal to sea water. Meyer in the end copied Puharich but tried to disguise it. I have copied to a certain extent but have changed certain things that work better for me.

You really need to read Puharich very well, he gives quite an honest description, but his reasons are a little flawed on what was happening or that was his security. The trick is if I can call it that, the heterodyning has to be done in the water and not before, it is the absorbtion of the two RF signals that creates this and breaks those bonds as I have explained before.

I think that other frequencies can be used, I have chosen VHF and UHF as I am well conversed as I am a radio ham, G6GVA in England, but since changed as I live in Spain, you can look up my call sign if you like.

Mike
@Michael
You may find this interesting;

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/hydrogen-0924.html

Hydrogen bonds in liquid water are broken only fleetingly — PNAS
__________________
 

Last edited by DrStiffler; 09-24-2010 at 12:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-24-2010, 12:37 AM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Mixing in non-linear medium

@Michael

I would propose a question for you?

Having f1 & f2 we would of course find f1, f2, f1+f2 and f2-f1. Now this of course is the simplest view. Now when you apply f1 and f2 to your cell, are you assuming this simple approach to f results or are you considering a superposition mode of operation?

With enough energy placed into the cell and we assume the non-linear mixing, would we not see a very large and somewhat high in energy content vast number of additional frequencies?

Thank, just food for thought....
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-24-2010, 07:52 AM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
@Michael

I would propose a question for you?

Having f1 & f2 we would of course find f1, f2, f1+f2 and f2-f1. Now this of course is the simplest view. Now when you apply f1 and f2 to your cell, are you assuming this simple approach to f results or are you considering a superposition mode of operation?

With enough energy placed into the cell and we assume the non-linear mixing, would we not see a very large and somewhat high in energy content vast number of additional frequencies?

Thank, just food for thought....
Hi Dr. Stiffler

You are very right, you end up with many frequencies with a fine line between them. I will go into the fine line on Monday when I have come back fro a trip, must go now, people are waiting for me

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-24-2010, 08:34 AM
Farrah Day Farrah Day is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 481
Mike

Quote:
You have answered your own question as far as who has done this with Rf and it was not only with salt water, it was tested with other water formulas as well. The frequency was mixed and heterodyned in the salt water and other chemical mixes also proved to work but at different degrees.
I see, so all this is based on Kanzuis, so we're never talking about just water, but water with an electrolyte added. This has not been mentioned until now.

What is your source of all this information? I've followed the Kanzius discovery, and yes though I too believe it would possibly work with other electrolytes, I have never heard of such experiments. Will you cite a source of reference?

Quote:
Puharich was the first and he used also brine at a concentration equal to sea water. Meyer in the end copied Puharich but tried to disguise it. I have copied to a certain extent but have changed certain things that work better for me.
You are saying that YOU have actually done this?

Quote:
You really need to read Puharich very well, he gives quite an honest description, but his reasons are a little flawed on what was happening or that was his security. The trick is if I can call it that, the heterodyning has to be done in the water and not before, it is the absorbtion of the two RF signals that creates this and breaks those bonds as I have explained before.
You say that Puharich's reasoning was a little flawed. What then is your interpretation of what is happening?

Mike, the one question that I keep asking and the one you keep avoiding like the plague is about the reactions. I take it from your lack of response that you do not know or cannot suggest what chemistry is taking place then? But if this is so, how can you be so sure Puharich's reasoning was flawed?

You do not know whether or not the water is ionising... is this correct?
__________________
 

Last edited by Farrah Day; 09-24-2010 at 08:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-24-2010, 09:01 AM
Duncan's Avatar
Duncan Duncan is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,329
Farrah … Michael speaks tacit volumes. The area of antenna’s, reflected power, parasitic elements and all the associated design is a specialist subject many very clever hams dedicate a great deal of their hobby hours experimenting in this area alone. I’m just a common or garden electrician and I assure you the field of RF is really alien to way we generally think of electricity. As I think about it now (many years after the fact) The way I (we) have been trained avoided crossing boundaries and so for instance “reflected power” and “standing wave” In RF engineering was taught as reactive power in electrical engineering.
And as for the longitudinal wave, I think we all know now that was just “buried” in both disciplines.
As for “blind faith” Of course not! Each stage can be studied; an old RSGB handbook seems to explain huge amounts to me. Michael is pointing the way to relevant links and so is the good Dr.
Pictures, working drawings, I would think not! He’s got a few more candles he’d like to blow out yet. and so of course if it can be avoided DON'T ASK. I don’t know if I personally have the skills to build the circuitry I see developing here particularly at UHF but I’m certainly starting to get my shopping list together and I’m going to give it a bloody good try!
Michael you should have a knighthood!





.
__________________
Whatever you can do,or dream you can,begin it.Boldness has genius,power and magic in it.Begin it now.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-24-2010, 09:53 AM
wings wings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 216
superradiance
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Superradiance Preparata Del Giudice.jpg (30.9 KB, 140 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-24-2010, 12:12 PM
Slovenia Slovenia is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,668
Thanks

Duncan,

Thanks for all you have shared including your tactful hint to the Farrah.

Best Regards,
Slovenia


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post
Farrah … Michael speaks tacit volumes. The area of antenna’s, reflected power, parasitic elements and all the associated design is a specialist subject many very clever hams dedicate a great deal of their hobby hours experimenting in this area alone. I’m just a common or garden electrician and I assure you the field of RF is really alien to way we generally think of electricity. As I think about it now (many years after the fact) The way I (we) have been trained avoided crossing boundaries and so for instance “reflected power” and “standing wave” In RF engineering was taught as reactive power in electrical engineering.
And as for the longitudinal wave, I think we all know now that was just “buried” in both disciplines.
As for “blind faith” Of course not! Each stage can be studied; an old RSGB handbook seems to explain huge amounts to me. Michael is pointing the way to relevant links and so is the good Dr.
Pictures, working drawings, I would think not! He’s got a few more candles he’d like to blow out yet. and so of course if it can be avoided DON'T ASK. I don’t know if I personally have the skills to build the circuitry I see developing here particularly at UHF but I’m certainly starting to get my shopping list together and I’m going to give it a bloody good try!
Michael you should have a knighthood!





.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-24-2010, 01:29 PM
Farrah Day Farrah Day is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 481
Yeah, everyone is lovely and wonderful... knighthoods, medals of honour, etc, etc.... I get all that. All very nice, but does anybody actually want to discuss the science involved here?

Is anyone actually considering the science of this... or is everyone simply hopping on the bandwagon, happy to just heap on the praise and follow Mikes lead?

Quote:
Thanks for all you have shared including your tactful hint to the Farrah.
What's this supposed to mean? What hint?

I'm simply questioning the effect the EMR is having. Forget all the fancy electronics to get the required EMR, the key to this is what reactions are taking place within the electrolytic solution.

Mike is yet to talk about this, which is where my personal interest lies and hence all the questions. In fact, if you look through this thread, the science involved has yet to even be touched upon. And it seems to me that rather a lot is simply being taken for granted by everyone.

Anybody else care to have a stab at the chemistry that takes us from water to oxygen and hydrogen?

Initially I thought Mike was talking about dissociating water without an electrolyte, but now we know this is not the case. So unless Mike brings something new to the table, then we have no more information than already provided by Kanzius... do we!
__________________
 

Last edited by Farrah Day; 09-24-2010 at 02:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-24-2010, 10:42 PM
Corey Corey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slovenia View Post
Nvisser & others,

I think we should perform a Meyer replication in as expedient a fashion as possible using just the most basic bare bones apparatus to get a good proof of concept device only. In other words just one or two tube set cell to start with. When we determine how to properly tune this arrangement and get a working prototype, we can build the cell as large and complicate as we like. In the mean time I think we need to utilize the KISS principle and keep the system as simple as possible.

I have a good acquaintance who has expended a lot of money working on the Meyer cell system over the past several years. I'm pretty sure this fellow will help us. He'd like to get his cells working too and he has many of them. So, I'll contact him and see what can be done. I'm sure I can get him to offer some advise on where we should start.


I don't want to trouble Michael Nunnerley to much for details which we can get somewhere else.

Best Regards,
Slovenia
It seems to me that it would be more simple (KISS) to get past the big electrolyser, and go directly to a Meyer like 'plug cell'. It just seems to me that it would be less bulky and less dangerous if all the reactions and bond breaking is being done in the cylinder, rather than pumping in the solution from a remote location.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:16 AM
Duncan's Avatar
Duncan Duncan is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,329
Hi Corey just trying to get a picture of the construction of such a thing in my head here, It has always seemed to me that as a rule of thumb the higher frequency a transmitter used the physically smaller the antenna becomes.
Because of course you must be “tuning” In relationship to the physical length of the wave.( speed of light)M/s = F(hz) x wavelengthM) If you’re vintage enough to remember the first generation of TVs when they used the VHF band perhaps you can remember the physical size of the aerial? Big very big.
As the skills at switching at relatively high speed improved, particularly in the line output and fly back section of TVs the manufacturers had to use a higher frequency band UHF, among other very important things this resulted in very much smaller antenna’s. Given this relationship of size/frequency perhaps you can see a logical conclusion for x rays?
Another thing to try and keep in mind if you’re trying to manufacture an aerial is the higher the frequency the more precise your measurement and manufacture has to be.
I’m an electrician and have little to do with RF and so if I ramble a bit around the subject with my limited understanding it just may just help others to get in this grove and if I miss the mark totally I’m sure a kindly lash will fall from some where on this forum!
First consider your TV connected to its aerial, The TV aerial set up is much the same (mathematically at least) to a transmitting aerial in reverse and so we can at least start to get a picture (and no I didn’t mean that pun) you go to the shop and you buy 75 ohm coax ??? Why 75 ohm. If you go and get your multi meter just where are you going to measure this 75 ohms? Incidentally in the olden days of VHF it used to be 50 ohms I mention this because perhaps we may be using VHF again sometime.
Anyway this 75 ohms is called the cables “Characteristic Impedance” Impedance really gives the game away it’s got to be related to frequency! Now let me introduce you to this little bit of theory called maximum power transfer(I know this is a DC example but the general principle remains and I KISS) Maximum Power Transfer Theorem Your TV aerial is carefully spaced and measured and shaped to be receptive to the wave lengths you wish to receive. Bend a few of those spikey things and your picture won’t be very good!
It’s actually a marvel of mathematics and engineering its just cheap as chips because its mass produced and we don’t give it a second thought. There is also “depending on how you view the subject” a lot of “gain” going on up there and Mr. Yagi is the guy who put that together How a Yagi Beam Antenna Works (I’ve really only put that link in because something is nagging at the back of my mind related to Meyers tubes and the yagi each element of the yagi has to be a tuned length and Meyers slots would be??) anyway in the scheme of things our TV aerial only has a tiny amount of power. So it’s unlikely you’re going to be lighting any light bulbs from it. The TV itself needs every scrap of this signal.It can get. If you yourself were actually that signal oscillating at 400 MHz and with a wave length of 75 cm looking out from the center of your 75 ohm home you would see you guessed it 75ohms! But only at UHF of course Maximum power transfer would allow all the power available into the cable. Having traveled down the cable you have to cross again into the TV again you see 75 ohms (by design).
And so in a perfect world you are aiming for Maximum power transfer from the aerial to the coax and maximum power transfer from the coax to the TV and all at 400Mhz (or whatever) of course If you reverse the operation and Transmit power and one of these links isn’t matched perfectly and you don’t get maximum power transfer the power has to go somewhere and it usually spills out all over the place and normally finds Its way to some heavy weight boxers TV who suspects your responsible for buggering up his sport.
This is why Mayer talks of TVI (television interference) This mismatch situation spews signal all over the place I think the official word is spurious (good word hey) and explains why you sometimes hear CBs and taxi’s on your landline, TV, radio whatever.
And so what happens if your antenna is Totally mismatched and as each full wave is only 75 cm long It isn’t hard to get it wrong No power is transmitted from the aerial at all It is all reflected back down the coax spurious signal is spewed out all over the waveband and Its very likely in fact almost a flying certainty that your transmitters amplifier will get “Cooked”
I like to think of these 75cm waves physically sitting on the antenna whilst trying to locate the connection point that is the Node of a wave. Can you Just Imagine the complications involved trying to design and manufacture at X-ray Cory? incidentally if you get near the feeder of a mismatched line you can light a fluorescent lamp off the standing wave just as I have recently seen Eric Dollard do, (love that guys delivery, I hope he’s OK)
Perhaps what the RF people call spurious has something of the linear about it?
This 10 or 15 watts being discussed here doesn’t sound much to an electrician but RF people can and do transmit around the world with ease with this power.
It can (and did in Mayers case until he got it under control) create absolute havoc.(This slip of tongue TVI would of course be a huge clue any radio guy as to what was happening and give the band away too!) The good Dr and Mike have tried to point out the difficulties pit falls and demands of this project that “faraday cage” is most important IMHO. In my ham fisted way I am trying to relate how I comprehend what is clearly being said and what is not being said.
A little Reading on the magnetic loop antenna reveals that it first came into widespread use as a transmitting medium because the German U Boat fleet discovered It could be used to transmit successfully without the need to surface.
__________________
Whatever you can do,or dream you can,begin it.Boldness has genius,power and magic in it.Begin it now.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:48 AM
Duncan's Avatar
Duncan Duncan is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,329
Farrah – I’d love to be able to!! But alas it’s a thing that officially “never happened” a case of “fraud” and it’s an impossible heresy as far as official science and chemistry is concerned... I believe Mayer did exactly what he said he did, and I’ve got little doubt Puharich got the job done before him. What about you?
Did they both know the chemical “nuts and bolts”? I don’t know they were certainly both very clever men and no doubt had formed their own conclusions.
But In the strict scientific sense where mathematical proof is all, perhaps not! I really don’t know they were both murdered before they flowered.
After all from the cause of magnetism to dowsing there are 1000s of enigmas; however all these things still demonstrably work!
Anyway the “fractured stick” thing does it for me! I’ve just about got enough nous to picture it which is good!!
I have read that the EM wave has yet to be satisfactory explained (never mind electric current) and that’s been in common use for better that 100 years. As for its concentrated heterodyne effect on H20 who knows?! If gentleman of the caliber of Mayer and Puharich demonstrated and lectured on their devices in front of hundreds I think you can assume it did something special,
Well first I’d like to try and reproduce it. What about you? We are talking buttons here in the scheme of things, I don’t think Stan or Andrja were lying cheats what do you think?
And you and Aaron please stop squabbling in the sand pit I bet you don’t speak like that when you’re out picking daisy’s together!
That it does happen I have no doubt, perhaps a shaper blade than mine knows why and who knows Farrah the answer may reveal itself to you in the merry banter
As this develops
__________________
Whatever you can do,or dream you can,begin it.Boldness has genius,power and magic in it.Begin it now.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:22 AM
Slovenia Slovenia is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,668
Thanks

Thanks for sharing this Jetijs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
This looks relevant, by Joseph Cater:
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-25-2010, 12:02 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post
Farrah – I’d love to be able to!! But alas it’s a thing that officially “never happened” a case of “fraud” and it’s an impossible heresy as far as official science and chemistry is concerned... I believe Mayer did exactly what he said he did, and I’ve got little doubt Puharich got the job done before him. What about you?
Did they both know the chemical “nuts and bolts”? I don’t know they were certainly both very clever men and no doubt had formed their own conclusions.
But In the strict scientific sense where mathematical proof is all, perhaps not!
You asked Farrah, but if ye asked me, I'd say I know Meyer, Puharich and Gray all did what the say they did, because I checked it out and am at a point I can just about put the mathematical proof behind it. However, as far as I can tell, none of them knew about the real working principle behind their systems. They were tapping their energy from the electric field and nowhere else, IMHO. And that is the opinion of someone holding a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering, for what that is worth these days.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-25-2010, 02:42 PM
Farrah Day Farrah Day is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 481
Quote:
You asked Farrah, but if ye asked me, I'd say I know Meyer, Puharich and Gray all did what the say they did, because I checked it out and am at a point I can just about put the mathematical proof behind it. However, as far as I can tell, none of them knew about the real working principle behind their systems. They were tapping their energy from the electric field and nowhere else, IMHO. And that is the opinion of someone holding a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering, for what that is worth these days.
Lamare I'm sure your degree holds you in good stead within it's given field, but where the dissociation of water is concerned, we clearly don't see eye to eye as we've already established. It would be handy if you had a degree in chemistry, because it's the chemistry here that is clearly the major stumbling block.

Meyer's depictions of what is happening at molecular level is at extreme odds to Puharich's depictions, then there's Geoge Wiseman's expanded water theory, so I guess at least we agree on one thing, that is if all the claims are true, most people did not know what reactions are taking place and hence were likely talking nonsense. And this is not to discredit anyone, just simply a statement of logic.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-25-2010, 02:55 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farrah Day View Post
Lamare I'm sure your degree holds you in good stead within it's given field, but where the dissociation of water is concerned, we clearly don't see eye to eye as we've already established. It would be handy if you had a degree in chemistry, because it's the chemistry here that is clearly the major stumbling block.
IHMO, chemistry has nothing to do with what Gray, Meyer and Puharich really did out of the ordinary. They extracted electrical energy out of the electric field using the same principles as Grey used to power his electric motor. The only difference between Gray and the other two is that they used the power to split water using the chemical reactions that have been known ever since Faraday. These are reactions that involve the movement of charges between two half reactions, which are normally performed using electrodes, but as far as I can tell, these can also be performed "in fluid" using ions as charge carriers under the condition that the required amount of energy to perform this reaction is applied in an appropriate manner in the shape of electromagnetic energy. And that can be either a current, an electric field and apparantly also an HF electromagnetic field as Mike is telling us.

In other words: IMHO it is all about how to get the (electric) power applied to the reaction, the reaction itself is the plain old reaction known as Faraday electrolysis.

To make this absolutely clear: I did not mean to say I know that the theories of either one of these inventors were correct. I meant to say that I know that their observations regarding being able to extract excess energy out of the vacuum were correct.

One more thing: Electrical Engineers do get quite a bit of Physics and Chemistry in their curriculum. For example, you have to understand the physics of semiconductors and the production of integrated circuits does involve quite a bit of chemistry and physics too. So, EE are not experts all the way on Chemistry, but they do have a good basic understanding of Chemistry.

Last edited by lamare; 09-25-2010 at 03:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-25-2010, 09:31 PM
Duncan's Avatar
Duncan Duncan is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,329
and now.... the post cant move
__________________
Whatever you can do,or dream you can,begin it.Boldness has genius,power and magic in it.Begin it now.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:35 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,782
120MHz crystal oscillator

If we get back on topic:



The diagram Mike shows shows a single crystal oscillator.

Can we just start out with a 120MHz crystal oscillator to start with instead
of having to to run a 20MHz one through a doubler than tripler?

The diagram is from 1989 so maybe 120MHz ones weren't available then
but doing a short search, it seems there are 120MHz crystals available.

Is there any reason we can't start with a 120MHz one?
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-26-2010, 01:40 AM
SeaMonkey SeaMonkey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Dystopia Amerika
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
If we get back on topic:

Can we just start out with a 120MHz crystal oscillator to start with instead
of having to to run a 20MHz one through a doubler than tripler?

The diagram is from 1989 so maybe 120MHz ones weren't available then
but doing a short search, it seems there are 120MHz crystals available.

Is there any reason we can't start with a 120MHz one?
There are physical limits to the frequency of oscillation
of the quartz crystal. In order to obtain the best possible
accuracy and stability frequency multipliers are a
necessity.

This Wiki article is quite comprehensive.
__________________
 

Last edited by SeaMonkey; 09-26-2010 at 01:41 AM. Reason: Modification
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-26-2010, 03:58 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,782
crystal oscillator accuracy

Thanks SeaMonkey.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the 120MHz and 720MHz frequencies seem to be the two
input frequencies that may do the trick and from what Mike
indicates in his posts other input/companion frequencies can work too.

The 120 and 720 seem to just be a result of starting with a 20MHz
exact crystal.

There are definitely 120MHz crystals available and seem to be towards
the upper end of the easily available and lower cost ones.

Q1) If the 120MHz has more deviation from a lower one like a 20MHZ, lets
say a couple thousand cycles per second for example
and I've seen those +/- tolerances referenced for them, wouldn't the
secondary frequency still be proportionate to it's own doubling and tripling
compared to the 120MHz frequency?

Q2) And therefore, the other 2 frequencies (difference of and sum of) would
also still automatically be in the right proportion no matter what the
input crystal is?

Q3) So basically, if the 120MHz crystal deviates, the secondary frequency
through doubling and tripling and the other 2 "heterodyned" frequencies
would all still follow proportionately to the instability of the 120MHz crystal,
would they?

Q4) If so, then it seems it wouldn't matter the stability of a 120MHz crystal
and we could cut out one entire doubling circuit and one entire tripling
circuit and just start with 120MHz.

At least for now, I don't see a downfall of that because I'm pretty sure
the water molecules have no appreciation for "round numbers" as nature
doesn't work on them so they should split according to Mike's diagram
even if the 120MHz crystal does have more deviation than a 20MHz
crystal.

IF, there is a benefit to having more stability such as some kind of
entrainment or something in the water bath or water mist cloud that
is more effective at a very, very specific stable frequency - 4 mixed
frequencies from the heterodyning - then I can see a benefit of using
a 20MHz with a doubler and tripler to get 120MHz.

I personally don't want to build any extra circuitry I don't have to
and am looking for any way that can simplify the entire circuit. Not in
concept, just in electronics and using a 120MHz crystal at the front
would eliminate a doubler and tripler on the input path.

Mike is an incredible engineer so I can see why he may want to just
make the circuit have a very specific or predictable frequency to work
with - it is good design protocol or whatever you want to call it.

But if a certain amount of deviation is permissible and won't effect
the results, then I'm all for the easier method.

I'd love to hear any feed back on the above concepts from anyone that
has direct hands on experience with crystal oscillators.

My only experience with crystals was when I was a teen playing with
remote control cars and had different crystals for different channels on
the remote control and the receiver in case someone I was racing had
the same frequency. But of course I didn't have to have any idea how
they worked to use them.

I have some questions about the oscillator circuits themselves but I'll
wait for details on the above. If it is crucial
to have a precision frequency on the crystal, then no big deal... just
go with the 20MHz and put it through a doubler and tripler. But I'd at
least like to know.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-26-2010, 11:54 AM
Duncan's Avatar
Duncan Duncan is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,329
I’m assuming that a basic oscillator circuit something perhaps after this style COLPITTS 1 To 20 MHz Crystal Oscillator is about the ticket, When this Xtal oscillates Its going to generate Its fundamental 20 MHz and of course the output is going to be rich in harmonics (overtones) one way or another in due course I assume we are going to filter out and use the 6th and the 36th overtone.
I assume Mike has used a 20 MHz Xtal for economy and because it’s a standard and readily available.
I also believe it’s a bad Idea to try and “load” an Xtal at Its fundamental frequency. It’s basically Impedance matching that I see as being a problem if you deviate from Mikes 20Mhz plan. You may have to “dampen” the oscillations when you first set up your oscillator after that you really don’t want the oscillator “to see” any variation (load) in its operating conditions. Just extract the 6th and 36th overtones from the hundreds at high impedance and amplify them.
As for the frequencies used Remember Mikes a Ham and he would be trying as far as possible to experiment On bands he’s allowed to use he was also aware that Stan caused TVI and so Knew UHF was probably part of the equation As for us we’d better have a good faraday cage all around it. .
.
__________________
Whatever you can do,or dream you can,begin it.Boldness has genius,power and magic in it.Begin it now.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:31 PM
Slovenia Slovenia is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,668
Duncan's Link

Thanks for the link Duncan. It helps lot.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-26-2010, 03:30 PM
nvisser's Avatar
nvisser nvisser is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South Africa
Posts: 755
Send a message via Skype™ to nvisser
uhf amplifier

Could this be the type of amplifier we are looking for. They say it could be easily modified to a wide band amp. I am not sure what the power output is. They only say 35dB gain. Input of 18v, 55mA is according to me about 1W.
As far as I can remember every 3dB gain is doubling of power. So this could well be much over a 10W amp.
And it does not look to expensive.
3 - Motorola UHF LNA RF Amplifier 400-1100 MHz 900MHz - eBay (item 360303698465 end time Sep-30-10 13:26:46 PDT)

uhf amplifier items - Get great deals on Electronics, Business Industrial items on eBay.com!

There are a large variety to choose from.
Any thoughts on this?
__________________
 

Last edited by nvisser; 09-26-2010 at 03:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-26-2010, 04:07 PM
nvisser's Avatar
nvisser nvisser is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South Africa
Posts: 755
Send a message via Skype™ to nvisser
Stupid idea?

It sounds like the more carrier frequencies we use the better.
Will it not be easier to receive TV signals from a uhf and a vhf aerial and just amplify that and zap them into the antennas in the WFC container?
Then they can heterodyne like hell.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-26-2010, 04:58 PM
Cherryman Cherryman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvisser View Post
It sounds like the more carrier frequencies we use the better.
Will it not be easier to receive TV signals from a uhf and a vhf aerial and just amplify that and zap them into the antennas in the WFC container?
Then they can heterodyne like hell.
now "Media Black-out" gets a whole new meaning
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-26-2010, 05:58 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
UWB Exciters

@All

I don't want to change Mike's direction at all, but will throw out some additional info about obtaining the frequencies you want.

If you use doubler's, tripler's etc., you can design them so that they are for the most part immune fro non-desired input frequencies by using a combination of input filters (bandpass) and a high Q tank for the output stage. Therefore its a matter of good engineering and the art of RF to reject what might be present that you do not want.

What we do at my lab is use one of my exciters into a SGATE which gives a pretty level output across hundreds of megahertz.

*Side note for that 'PestWicked' fellow that made the remark that I could not substantiate UWB from my Exciters in the Diode Electrolysis Videos, LOOK CLOSELY.

Okay to explain what a SEC Exciter and SGATE can do, here are a few picture from an SA to show what not many of you have seen do to not having the needed equipment.

What I do is adjust the exciter for the spread I desire and bridge off the specific frequency I desire.

I would think this would be much easier than all the oscillator, doubler and triplers, just bandpass and amplify what you want, pic the candy from the selection so to speak.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MVC-007S.jpg (54.9 KB, 52 views)
File Type: jpg MVC-008S.jpg (52.0 KB, 38 views)
File Type: jpg MVC-006S.jpg (49.3 KB, 38 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-26-2010, 08:58 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,782
colpitts oscillator

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post
I’m assuming that a basic oscillator circuit something perhaps after this style COLPITTS 1 To 20 MHz Crystal Oscillator is about the ticket,

I also believe it’s a bad Idea to try and “load” an Xtal at Its fundamental frequency. It’s basically Impedance matching that I see as being a problem if you deviate from Mikes 20Mhz plan. You may have to “dampen” the oscillations when you first set up your oscillator after that you really don’t want the oscillator “to see” any variation (load) in its operating conditions.
Nice! Last night I went through some crystal oscillator schematics and
THAT is the EXACT one I have sitting in another tab right now. Didn't
want to post about it until I had some feedback on my post. I'll take the
synchronicity as a good sign - and there are countless choices



Does anyone else see any reason why this simple circuit would not work
for the purposes in Mike's diagram?

Duncan, I see what you're saying about directly "loading" the source
crystal/frequency.

But still, my question is - does it even matter?

If the frequency changes by directly "loading" it, the secondary
frequency through the double and tripler will simply still be a double
then tripled frequency of the original and the difference of and sum
of those two frequencies will always still be an exact difference and
exact sum of those two frequencies. So, no matter how the 120MHz
crystal deviates, there is still 4 wave mixing happening.

Does it shorten the life of the crystal? If not, then damaging the crystal
this way isn't an issue.

The only issue I see if there is deviation in the frequency of a single
120MHz crystal is if there is an advantage to having a dead on source
frequency in the water where the antennas are. If breaking the 2x4
piece of wood by jiggling it at both ends with two frequencies will happen
just as effective with a crystal that deviates in frequency up and down
a bit, then a single 120MHz crystal will eliminate a double and tripler
on the input path to the amplifier and other double/tripler circuit.

I understand replicating systems means to do it EXACTLY. However,
if 120MHz crystal availability that long ago has anything to do with it,
then we can take out two blocks from the diagram. It really is only a
question that Mike can answer because he knows the reason he went
with a 20MHz one to start with. Hopefully, he will see this when he gets
back.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers