News

**LOP-IS-A-PSYOP** lop guest User ID: 94487 06-04-2012 04:35 AM

Luvapottamus Wrote:

Johnny Ringo Wrote:
GeekOfTheWeek Wrote:
Convert water to hydrogen, burn it to make steam, power a generator to make electricity, to run electric motors

If it werent for those pesky laws of conservation

Yes, except it's catlytic.

I'm listening.. :pop:

**LOP-IS-A-PSYOP** lop guest User ID: 94487 06-04-2012 04:37 AM

Johnny Ringo Wrote:

Luvapottamus Wrote:
Johnny Ringo Wrote:
If it werent for those pesky laws of conservation

Yes, except it's catlytic.

I'm listening..

my popcorn didnt pop the first time :/ I actually wasnt being sarcastic sorry if i came across that way. is this an electrolysis method you are referring to or? i enjoy reading in on the energy topics.

**RadTech**

Insight Wrote:

I have a question: Don't you need Palladium to make hydrogen? And it's a space based metal. If you need that to make hydrogen and it's not readily available on planet earth, no wonder we're still an oil based world and oil based economy.

Palladium isn't needed. I'll try to be simplistic but doing so I'll be subject to errors by omission. Just a Lead Acid battery produces an explosive mix of Hydrogen and Oxygen (the bubbles and venting gasses for example). The issue isn't how to separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen from the water. That can be done in numerous ways but its energy intensive to do so. People expect the conversion to be energy free but it's not. You need equal or more energy to do it. Once you burn the mixture (Rocket fuel) it converts back to water again reverting back to another state of energy.

You can convert water to hydrogen and oxygen, then burn it and it converts back to water over and over and over again. In the end you'll not gain any energy but just converted into different forms of energy. If you could repeatedly "gain energy" you would be breaking the 4 laws of thermodynamics.

**Insight**

RadTech Wrote:

Insight Wrote:
I have a question: Don't you need Palladium to make hydrogen? And it's a space based metal. If you need that to make hydrogen and it's not readily available on planet earth, no wonder we're still an oil based world and oil based economy.

Palladium isn't needed. I'll try to be simplistic but doing so I'll be subject to errors by omission. Just a Lead Acid battery produces an explosive mix of Hydrogen and Oxygen (the bubbles and venting gasses for example). The issue isn't how to separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen from the water. That can be done in numerous ways but its energy intensive to do so. People expect the conversion to be energy free but it's not. You need equal or more energy to do it. Once you burn the mixture (Rocket fuel) it converts back to water again reverting back to another state of energy.

You can convert water to hydrogen and oxygen, then burn it and it converts back to water over and over and over again. In the end you'll not gain any energy but just converted into different forms of energy. If you could repeatedly "gain energy" you would be breaking the 4 laws of thermodynamics.

Thank you for answering that!

**Luvapottamus** · (This post was last modified: 06-04-2012 04:48 AM by Luvapottamus.)

Johnny Ringo Wrote:

Johnny Ringo Wrote:
Luvapottamus Wrote:
Yes, except it's catlytic.

I'm listening..

my popcorn didnt pop the first time :/ I actually wasnt being sarcastic sorry if i came across that way. is this an electrolysis method you are referring to or? i enjoy reading in on the energy topics.

I thought it was hokey, so volunteered to keep working while the other guys went to the seminar.

But if I remember right, the system I saw, had 2 or more reagents and a catalyst as well as electrodes and water.

And one of the problems they were having was that one of the ingredients was coating one of the electrodes, causing the reaction to slow,

and the other problem was you ended up with a waste product, a salt, probably.

But that's kinda vague. The boss and the other tech were more concerned with tricking the control unit(ECM/PCM) than the gunk,

and I remember the reagents were cheap, and the waste wasn't real toxic, but it wasn't something I'd want to install on a customer's car.

Maybe screw around with it on one of mine, but it kinda went into my mental recycle bin.

I'd rather play around with something else, like water injection.

Not to get big mileage gains, just to clean off my pistons mostly, with a little added fuel economy.

chuckle

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 94687 06-04-2012 05:05 AM

LoP Guest Wrote:

THe dept of energy will be doing a 5 year study to determine if it is in Israel's interest for americans to use this technology...

Well, there it is.

Jhikpghf

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 90971 06-04-2012 05:33 AM

HHO is fine but how about the vw polo in the uk? it gets 91 mpg (imperial gallon) on the highway.

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/polo-v...nsumption/

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 97274 06-04-2012 06:12 AM

LoP Guest Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
LoP Guest Wrote:
THe dept of energy will be doing a 5 year study to determine if it is in Israel's interest for americans to use this technology...

oh... under the auspices of national security, of course...

rather... behind the wizard of oz curtain...

Wizard of Ausch (witz)

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 97274 06-04-2012 06:17 AM

RadTech Wrote:

Insight Wrote:
I have a question: Don't you need Palladium to make hydrogen? And it's a space based metal. If you need that to make hydrogen and it's not readily available on planet earth, no wonder we're still an oil based world and oil based economy.

Palladium isn't needed. I'll try to be simplistic but doing so I'll be subject to errors by omission. Just a Lead Acid battery produces an explosive mix of Hydrogen and Oxygen (the bubbles and venting gasses for example). The issue isn't how to separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen from the water. That can be done in numerous ways but its energy intensive to do so. People expect the conversion to be energy free but it's not. You need equal or more energy to do it. Once you burn the mixture (Rocket fuel) it converts back to water again reverting back to another state of energy.

You can convert water to hydrogen and oxygen, then burn it and it converts back to water over and over and over again. In the end you'll not gain any energy but just converted into different forms of energy. If you could repeatedly "gain energy" you would be breaking the 4 laws of thermodynamics.

In other words, "nothing to see here, move along", right?

f*ck the 4 laws of thermodynamics, i'm sick and tired of scientists pretending they know everything there is to know, only to have them change it 5 years from now with no eating of crow or humility that they were (and are) arrogant asses that keep us from moving forward by condemning anything that doesn't fit into their theorom of the week.

S977

**StrataFire**

It's the disassociation one has to do to break the bonds between the hydrogen atoms, and the oxygen atoms themselves..

Hydrogen has an attenuation frequency of 1.420 gigahertz, while the Oxygen atom, has an attenuation of 118.75 gigahertz..

I's the Oxygen atom that is the problem...

We can attenuate to the hydrogen fairly easy with off the shelf clock crystal systems, but the Oxygen atom, is a pain in the keaster, because of being so much higher on the food chain for attenuation..

Hydrogen is easier to attenuate to, thus easier to vibrate (resonate) against it;s atomic bonds using nothing more then microwave energy to do so..

It's the Oxygen atom that is a pain, and requires a higher amplitude modulation at the attenuation frequency, to get it to also work against it's atomic bonds with the hydrogen itself..

Personally, I would use microwave bands in the higher ranges, to disassociate the atomic bonds between the three atoms that make up water..

This of course means that it would cause a higher acceleration of energy in the infrared spectrum (heat) to be noticed, but if a simple good car fuel injector was used, with sufficient pressure to atomize the water when it is pumped into the "pulsed" microwave chamber, the breakdown of the atomic bonds between all three atoms would be increased more effectively, which leave you with ample amounts of HHO itself, and since hydrogen is far lighter then Oxygen, it would be nigh child's play to separate the two form each other..

Those electrolysis methodologies have some serious problems with them, not the least is lack of gold plated rods to prevent contamination of the water, and even then one of the way of making a Monoatomic metal, is by electrolysis itself (that white powder that build up on the rods I see so many pictures of) which Monoatomic metals are absolutely inert, and incapable of reacting to anything at all (which explains why the process stops after a heavy coating is collected from constant usage..)..

It all has to do with frequency manipulations, using "counter feedback" attenuations of the frequencies of hydrogen and oxygen, which (yes) can cause a quick and violent ripping of the atomic bonds from each other (if applied too liberally)..

But to get a good "bang for your buck", I would use frequency attenuations with a pulsed microwave separator chamber, by way of a fuel injector for atomization of the water, to get at the most return on investment of energy...

**RadTech** · (This post was last modified: 06-04-2012 08:12 AM by RadTech.)

LoP Guest Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
RadTech Wrote:
That guy was a well known fraud ripping people off for $1500 a pop. Here's the kit and everything you need to perpetuate the fraud. Free download! Now you can go build the kit. Come back without posting as an Anonymous nobody and I'll tell you exactly why it doesn't work. Or just read his unscientific babbling and quickly understand that he was just an uneducated, unskilled poseur trying to rip off the even less educated.

With such simple circuits using 555 timers anyone with 9th grade electronics skills could build it but for some mysterious reason, no one in the last 15 years has been able to do anything useful with it. Why? Because the guy was a nutcase and a fraud!

http://www.movingbitsproductions.com/Aut...rchive.zip

then why didn't he get a serious ass kicking by the colonel who flew out from the pentegon to check it out? (according to the news report video) neelth
and if he was such a fraud... why did he have so many successfully filed patents? (according to patents at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Meyer)

Stan Meyer was a Fraud and has lost lawsuits for his lies. He even has his own wiki describing his fraud, deception and lack of scientific knowledge. The only people that were suckered into his scheme were/are the scientifically challenged.

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/stanley_meyer.shtml

The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Meyer#Lawsuit

Please post Stan Meyer's successfully granted Patent numbers. I would like to see them.

I found a Patent application but that's worthless as anyone can pay the fees and apply for a Provisional Application for a Patent. I could spent a small fortune and submit 100's of them tomorrow but it's more important that the Patent is granted. Same with Trademark's as those are even easier to boast about.

I am officially Trademarking RadTech™ <--- My Cost is nothing. Since there is only one other Live RadTech Trademark. I could still File an Application for one of the 44 other classifications that are not being used. If I don't feel like filing I can still use RadTech™ without even paying a fee as long as I don't violate the other RadTechⓇ that sells aftermarket parts for Apple computers.

Quote: " ™ ℠ These designations indicate that a person or entity claims rights in a particular trademark or service mark. They do not indicate that the mark has been registered. Even though a mark is not registered, a person or entity claiming ownership may place the "TM" or "SM" designation next to it.

Ⓡ can be placed by anyone as long as they don't violate a Registered Ⓡ Trademark . Pay the fees and receive a pending Trademark after the review process it may or not be granted and called a Registered Trademark. Ⓡ Compared to ™ "

**RadTech**

StrataFire Wrote:

It's the disassociation one has to do to break the bonds between the hydrogen atoms, and the oxygen atoms themselves..

Hydrogen has an attenuation frequency of 1.420 gigahertz, while the Oxygen atom, has an attenuation of 118.75 gigahertz..

I's the Oxygen atom that is the problem...

We can attenuate to the hydrogen fairly easy with off the shelf clock crystal systems, but the Oxygen atom, is a pain in the keaster, because of being so much higher on the food chain for attenuation..

Hydrogen is easier to attenuate to, thus easier to vibrate (resonate) against it;s atomic bonds using nothing more then microwave energy to do so..

It's the Oxygen atom that is a pain, and requires a higher amplitude modulation at the attenuation frequency, to get it to also work against it's atomic bonds with the hydrogen itself..

Personally, I would use microwave bands in the higher ranges, to disassociate the atomic bonds between the three atoms that make up water..

This of course means that it would cause a higher acceleration of energy in the infrared spectrum (heat) to be noticed, but if a simple good car fuel injector was used, with sufficient pressure to atomize the water when it is pumped into the "pulsed" microwave chamber, the breakdown of the atomic bonds between all three atoms would be increased more effectively, which leave you with ample amounts of HHO itself, and since hydrogen is far lighter then Oxygen, it would be nigh child's play to separate the two form each other..

Those electrolysis methodologies have some serious problems with them, not the least is lack of gold plated rods to prevent contamination of the water, and even then one of the way of making a Monoatomic metal, is by electrolysis itself (that white powder that build up on the rods I see so many pictures of) which Monoatomic metals are absolutely inert, and incapable of reacting to anything at all (which explains why the process stops after a heavy coating is collected from constant usage..)..

It all has to do with frequency manipulations, using "counter feedback" attenuations of the frequencies of hydrogen and oxygen, which (yes) can cause a quick and violent ripping of the atomic bonds from each other (if applied too liberally)..

But to get a good "bang for your buck", I would use frequency attenuations with a pulsed microwave separator chamber, by way of a fuel injector for atomization of the water, to get at the most return on investment of energy...

You do know you jumped from Electrolysis to deep space communications and satellite altimetry? 118.75 GHz is a harmonic. Look at page 262 "oxygen absorption coefficient" and note the lower 60 GHz frequency peak.

Quote: "The isolated 118-GHz fine offers higher spatial resolution and precipitation sensitivity than O2 lines in the 5-mm band near 60 GHz."

http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Monograph/s...hapt+6.pdf

http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Monograph/s...110804.pdf

**Zardoz**

So, they will be out driving around when the grid goes down?! Raping and Pillaging, no doubt.

**Old Whatshisname**

My ghod, you people will believe anything.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 98397 06-04-2012 02:17 PM

What so hard about faking the O2 sensor reading to the ECM? They've sold O2 sensor simulators for years that you just plug in and it tells the computer that it's getting a good signal. Anon