Re: hydrogen generator
LARRY SULLIVAN ( polymercanada@bc.sympatico.ca )
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:42:26 -0800
Jerry Wayne Decker wrote:
>
> Hi Larry et al!
>
> Well no, I never asked because to my view, it is self-evident that
> electrical oscillations driving a transducer
> (speaker/piezo/plasma/vibrator, etc.) simply move AIR which produces
> SOUND.
>
> Unclear on the nature of a 'distinctive tuner' used by Tesla. Could
> you be more specific?
To me the tuner that Tesla used was not developed, but conceptual; His
focus was that if a an approcreate tuner could be developed it could be
utilized in his invention. As I can see it at the time of the inception
of the tesla generator (1890's) one is using current technology. The
tuner as I saw it was very primitive. Newer inovations may be the key in
unlocking the practicality of the device.
>
> This is getting pretty out there so, let's refocus on the thread
> topic, with regard to hydrogen generators, whether used in an engine
> or just to provide hydrogen for other uses, we have;
>
> 1) Keely using what he claimed was 42.8kcps to dissociate the water
> molecule for the production of immense pressures (not burning the
> released hydrogen or oxygen in any way) and using vibrating bars,
> tuned chambers and tuning forks without electricity
>
> 2) Puharich using mixed frequencies from the patent and 600 cps from
> the article he was quoted from and which essentially 'cracked' the
> water molecule to release hydrogen and oxygen which could be used for
> combustion or whatever
>
> 3) Meyer who claimed to use a high voltage discharge at one or more
> frequencies (patent was not found online though it was uploaded by
> Camber and I'll post it on the 'new KeelyNet' now in production) for
> the production of hydrogen and oxygen for combustion in an engine
>
> 4) Brown & Baumgartner using Browns gas, a monoatomic recombination
> of oxygen and hydrogen that produces an implosive effect and can drive
> an engine though is more commonly thought of as a novel welding system
> (see Wisemans page at; http://www.eagle-research.com )
>
> 5) Mills with his discovery of a new sub-particle or I think more
> appropriately a sub-isotope of hydrogen which he calls a 'hydrino',
> which has novel properties and apparently offers a lot of
> possibilities for combustion, power production, etc. as on his website
> at; http://www.blacklightpower.com
>
> 6) and of course, just basic hydrolysis where a high ampere direct
> current at low voltage is connected to one or more sets of
> anodes/cathodes immersed in water.
>
> I have never seen anything or heard anything about Tesla being
> involved in the production of hydrogen.
Tesla wasn't involved in hydrogen production but some of his inovations
could be applicable.
>
> Unless there is some new information regarding Tesla trying to produce
> hydrogen, he is irrelevant to the thread and was only introduced by
> myself in an attempt to illustrate that Keely used sound to rupture or
> dissociate the water molecule, with no electricity involved, in many
> cases producing a peculiar 'taffy-like plasma' that took several forms
> depending on whether it was created using air or water...but which (as
> I understand it) was in no way either simple hydrogen or oxygen.
>
> What we need to be clear on with regard to Keely and hydrogen
> production is that cracking of the water molecule simply to release
> hydrogen and oxygen was not what Keely was seeking or what he CLAIMED
> to have done.....he apparently went far beyond just cracking to
> reportedly produce incredible amounts of force (29,000 psi). There is
> a possibility with such numbers of improperly calibrated gauges and
> such which does not explain the instant lifting of heavy masses or the
> explosion of thick pipes...however, I digress...sorry...
>
> So, since the thread is about hydrogen generation per se, Keely isn't
> involved either..<g>....
>
> Personally, give me Keely's dissociation process ANYDAY over just
> hydrogen/oxygen gas production which has to be combusted to produce
> the explosive thrust.
>
> At any rate, is there anything we've missed with this thread about
> 'hydrogen generation'?
To me the association is "how similar" it is, to others it is how
"different it is". What I find interesting is how rather old inovations
have a way of becoming comtemptuarly. They all missed a missing part, in
our percieved modern world applying new knowledge to old is not
irrelevent.
I may not be up to speed on your thread but! What we are tring to do is
get useable energy. Utilizing audible sound for vibration is not a wild
idea. It all comes down to how much energy to get a greater result. To
me using a selected frequency to vibrate water molecules makes sense,
but is the output greater than the input.
Larry
> ======================
>
> ---LARRY SULLIVAN wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jerry:
> > Have you ever asked yourself what electrical induced sound is? Is it
> > not electrical energy converted to sound frequencies. Although Telsa
> was
> > the electrical guy, I have noted the distinctive tuner circuit in his
> > generator.
> >
> > Larry
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@dallastexas.net>
> with the body text: leave Keelynet
> list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/
> -------------------------------------------------------------