ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 138 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Burning water
Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2003 @ 01:57:43 UTC by vlad

Devices In a recent letter to Sterling D. Allan, Zlatko 'Shad' Loncar (http://www.shad.de.vu/) gives more explanations on his highly efficient water dissociation device. Here is an extract I found interesting (if indeed he has a prototype to demonstrate):

"...On my website I wrote that I do have cold electrolysis, molecular dissociation of water. This herewith is the exact opposite to conventional electrolysis, where most power disappears as heat, and electrodes and water need to be cooled, if such system is in permanent operation. This means power has to be invested to cool the system, so the water does not turn into vapor.

The reason why my system runs cool is that the warmth is transformed to kinetic energy whereby the water molecules are being accelerated by impulsive electric discharges.

Between the impulses, where no input is delivered to maintain this kinetic energy the molecules absorb the heat and transform them into kinetic energy, whereby this input is for free, caused by an interaction between the molecules and the ambient warmth.

Each single water-molecule which is a dipole functions as a sender and receiver.

Through acceleration of the molecules a high frequent field results which then the molecules broadcast. This broadcasting signal also attracts the same frequency, similar to a radio. It seems the ambient heat or warmth is made of high frequent waves, which the molecules absorb by resonance and are accelerated through.

By the resonant frequency of the impulses an avalanche effect is caused which also after turning off the electrolysis unit works on, which can be measured by an oscilloscope.

One can observe that high frequent fields are being absorbed in the water, without having to give any input for this, after having the unit turned off. This avalanche effect in the water, which can even be observed days and weeks after the unit was turned off, as long as the water remains in it.

The water converts the ambient warmth into kinetic energy, which in the water show as voltage and amperage. If no power is tapped from here, a self-maintaining electrolysis occurs which uses up the water. Of course this self-maintaining electrolysis is too inefficient to be utilized, but proves that the heat converts into kinetic energy by the decomposition of electric vortex wave.

The conventional electrolysis works with electric power, which is very inefficient, since water is no good conductor for electricity. My system works with "soft dissociation," magnetic resonance, whereby the molecular bonds of the molecules are decomposed by kinetic energy, which is caused by impulses and ambient heat. The water remains cold, as well as the electrodes, whereby a higher efficiency can be achieved."

From :http://www.greaterthings.com/News/FreeEnergy/Directory/Inventors/ShadLoncar/index.html


 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Devices
· News by vlad


Most read story about Devices:
Overunity magnet motor released !


Article Rating
Average Score: 4.33
Votes: 3


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Burning water" | Login/Create an Account | 13 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Burning water (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, July 20, 2003 @ 02:24:34 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
On the same topic, from the "TOP 10 IMPOSSIBLE INVENTIONS THAT WORK" by Jeane Manning :

"3. SYSTEM TO SPLIT WATER FOR FUEL BY USING RESONANCE

Another variation on the water-fuel theme relies more on vibrations than on chemistry. At more than 100 per cent efficiency, such a system produces hydrogen gas and oxygen from ordinary water at normal temperatures and pressure.

One example is U.S. Patent 4,394,230, Method and Apparatus for Splitting Water Molecules, issued to Dr. Andrija Puharich in 1983. His method made complex electrical wave forms resonate water molecules and shatter them, which freed hydrogen and oxygen. By using Tesla's understanding of electrical resonance, Puharich was able to split the water molecule much more efficiently than the brute-force electrolysis that every physics student knows. (Resonance is what shatters a crystal goblet when an opera singer hits the exact note which vibrates with the crystal's molecular structure.)

Puharich reportedly drove his mobile home using only water as fuel for several hundred thousand kilometers in trips across North America. In a high Mexican mountain pass he had to make do with snow for fuel. Splitting water molecules as needed in a vehicle is more revolutionary than the hydrogen-powered systems with which every large auto manufacturer has dallied. With the on-demand system, you don't need to carry a tank full of hydrogen fuel which could be a potential bomb.

Another inventor who successfully made fuel out of water on the spot was the late Francisco Pacheco of New Jersey. The Pacheco Bi-Polar Autoelectric Hydrogen Generator (U.S. Patent No. 5,089,107) separated hydrogen from seawater as needed.

A pioneer in breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen without heat or ordinary electricity, John Worrell Keely reportedly performed feats which 20th-century science is unable to duplicate. He worked with sound and other vibrations to set machines into motion. To liberate energy in molecules of water, Keely poured a quart of water into a cylinder where tuning forks vibrated at the exact frequency to liberate the energy. Does this mean he broke apart the water molecules and liberated hydrogen, or did he free a more primal form of energy? The records which could answer such questions are lost. However, a century later, Keely is being vindicated. One scientist recently discovered that Keely was correct in predicting the exact frequency which would burst apart a water molecule. Keely understood atoms to be intricate vibratory phenomena..."

This is another interesting comment that was sent to me (anon), unfortunatelly with no explanation who made it and where does it come from:

"...Seriously, there are a number of catalytic processes that split water. The most efficient i know of involve oxides of osmium and rubidium, and if you thought osmium was hard to get ahold of, rubidium's only current industrially significant supplier (last i heard) is a single mining project in Bear Lake, Canada.

The resultant catalytic degradation is apparently endothermic, that is, heat disappears to split the molecules.

Similar results can be achieved with far cheaper materials by just electrolyzing water within the range of 1.27-1.43 volts per cell. In this range, electrolyzers are slightly endothermic and pull heat from their surroundings to give you ~15% better efficiency than they really should on paper. This is, of course, balanced by the fact that no fuel cell will work at 100% efficiency. The First Law would be conserved at any efficiency of an oxyhydrogen fuel cell below ~90%.

If these guys think they have a 90%+ efficient oxyhydrogen fuel cell, i wish they'd tell NASA; those guys have spent millions on that selfsame idea.

Rubidium is the 16th most abundant element in the earth's crust, being a common contaminant of potassium salts. The typical human has about a third to a half of a gram in his body. It has relatively few uses so the demand is low, explaining why there is presently only a single producer..."





Re: Burning water (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Sunday, July 20, 2003 @ 09:58:08 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
As unlikely as this idea seems, it may have some credibilty. One of the premier works on hydrogen is "Fuel from Water" by Micheal A. Peavey, not a "fringe" author in the least. On page 22 under "Energy Requirements" the anomalous behavior of water electrolysis is cited. I will quote directly from the text:
"The smallest amount of energy needed to electrolyse one mole of water is 65.3 Watthours at 25C. When the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined into water during combustion 79.3 Watthours of energy are released. 14 Watthours more energy is released in burning hydrogen and oxygen than is required to split water" He then cites a reference: J.Fisher, "Fundamentals and Technological Aspects of Medium Temperature Electrolysers", in "Seminar on Hydrogen Energy Vectors".Commission of the European Community, Luxemborg. 1978. I have seen vague references to this anomaly occasionally. Anyone else know of anything like this?



Re: Burning water (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 @ 17:16:06 UTC
OK... here goes...

I believe this concept has some merit and I am interested in building a small-scale prototype of this device. I have only recently started doing some research and have found the following us patents:

- 4,394,230 method and apparatus for splitting water molecules
- 5,089,107 bi-polar auto electrolytic hydrogen generator
- 3,980,053 fuel supply apparatus for internal combustion engines
(see schematic on page 3)
- 5,293,857 Hydrogen gas fuel and management system for an internal combustion engine utilizing hydrogen gas fuel
- 4,798,661 Electrical circuit control system for a hydrogen fuel gas generator
- 4,936,961 method for the production of a fuel gas

I also downloaded the free plans from http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm which seem to show that for about $20 worth of parts, I can build a little circuit that will produce the correct frequency and amplitude range to produce molecular resonance in water.

So I got myself an oscilloscope from e-bay and rounded up all the components to build the circuit. Now comes the fun part. I was wondering, is anyone else building this thing? Is there some place on the internet where we can collaborate?

Hydrone



Re: Burning water (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 @ 16:44:41 UTC
Well, for now at least, it looks like I'm working in a one-man team...

I have a couple of things to update. First, I found more information. If you're interested, take a look at http://www.tathacus.ca and examine their Press Releases section. Tathacus is part owner of Xogen (whose website has suddenly gone under construction -- they were up just a few weeks ago). They seem to have produced exactly what it is I am trying to duplicate. Of particular importance are:
14-Sep-2000 Xogen unveils hydrogen generator via webcast
03-Oct-2000 Xogen secures US patent #6,126,794
14-Dec-2000 Xogen Hydrogen Technology tested by Alberta Research Council
28-Mar-2003 Tathacus announces Proof of Concept prototypes
30-May-2003 Xogen technology passes independent inspection
And the rest of the releases have to do with financial juggling and other bean-counter related stuff. No word on when production will start as they are currently working on acquiring real estate.

Secondly, I have completed building the circuit from the plans mentioned in my previous message. Of which, I have also found an identical copy at http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans.htm. I did notice a couple of mistakes in the existing circuit (which can be found at http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2_carplans_fig1.gif). For one, the MOSFET transistor should be an IRF510 -- not an IFR510. Also, the lettering of the leads (g,d,s) do not seem to correspond to the diagram. I checked the datasheet for that part at www.mouser.com and made the necessary corrections.

The circuit does produce a saw-tooth wave at the electrodes and adjusting the 20k pot for the throttle does change the voltage from 1 to 6 volts at pin-5 of the NE555. However, the 2k pot for the frequency adjust along with the bank of capacitors connected to the dip switch do not seem to have any effect on the frequency of the pulses. I have even completely removed the capacitors in the bank and did not see any change in the waveform produced. On the other hand, the 2k pot for pulse-width adjustment did have a slight effect on the waveform.

I have checked, re-checked, and triple-checked my circuit and connections and everything is connected exactly as it is shown in the schematic. Obviously there is an error somewhere with regards to the oscillator. Is there any Electrical Engineer out there that knows this subject better than I do and could provide some advice? I've verified that the pinout of the CD4069 chip matches that of the schematic's and I've connected the appropriate pins together as it illustrates. It's the only piece of the circuit that doesn't seem to be working.

Perhaps it is a problem with the capacitors I'm using? Being a Mechanical Engineer, I don't know the functional difference between electrolytic, ceramic, and dc-film capacitors. The way I see it, the only difference is the price. Also, some capacitance values were only available in ceramic disk or Tantalum format while other values were available in multiple formats. If there is more to it than that, please review the schematic and share your insight on this board. I would love some help right now.

As always, I am open to collaboration and sharing of my findings if there is someone interested in helping out.

Sincerely,
Hydrone.



Re: Burning water (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 @ 21:55:00 UTC
OK, I figured I should do the honorable thing and post this. After digging further into the subject and asking more questions, it would seem that this entire concept is nothing more than a pipe dream.

I've read tons of information and I can quickly summarize it like this: the electrons have to come from somewhere. Allow me to explain... In order to split water, we need to supply 2 electrons per molecule of water. Those electrons usually originate from a power source such as a battery or power grid.

No matter how you slice it and dice it, what goes in must come out. I see the err of my ways now. I was under the impression that we could simply break the elements apart without having to add any 'stuff' to the mix. As it turns out, each hydrogen atom in a water molecule shares its electron with the oxygen molecule. If you wanna make two gases out of water, you need to give each hydrogen atom its own electron so that it can exist and bond with another hydrogen atom (which also needs to have its own electron).

Therefore, even at high-frequency and high voltages, the _current_ (Amperes) supplied at the electrodes is what dictates how much gas is produced because it is a direct corolation to how many electrons you can supply to the water. Faraday's law. Go figure.

Allright, that's it, good night, I'm done; stick a fork in me.

Hydrone.

P.S.: I'd like to thank Don Lancaster for his insight and wisdom.



 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.