Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81921
  • *Latest: asithaya

  • *Total Posts: 490679
  • *Total Topics: 14440
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 237
  • *Total: 241

Facebook

Author Topic: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"  (Read 23522 times)

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #105 on: July 17, 2017, 07:01:24 PM »
As far as I can tell there are three totally difference methods to use to break the bonds of the water molecules. One way is known to most in the scientific community as "Electrolysis" which was discovered in the mid 1800's or late 1700's. This is the absolute worst way to go about breaking the bonds of the water molecules. The electrolysis method is very energy intensive, added pollutants to our environment, and it turns good drinking water into poison. The other two methods are not so well known to the scientific community but many of us here know or have heard about. The voltage dissociation[/size] of the water molecules and the harmonic dissociation of the water molecules.


The guy here in this video has the harmonic way to break the bonds of the water molecules https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KdcBoo5f0Q but he has no idea how to defeat the powers that be and his technology is just starting off having to go through their blocking processes designed to prevent technologies like these from becoming mainstream. He needs patents and a whole lot of other things before this technology can become viable and I am not sure he is up to the task of taking on those that sell energy right now.


The last of the three technologies is that of Dr. Dingle, Stanley Meyer, and a few others that figured it out, but it is Meyer that did all the work needed to get past the blocking of those that sell energy. Now that his patents are in the public domain anyone that figures it out can go right into mass production with it so that it is made affordable for the masses as that's the way the markets work. Open Source doesn't work for any technology that requires materials for it to be made as Open Source works for things like computer programs, software, and things that do not really exist in the real world. So if one tried to build just one of these known as making a "One Off" they are going to spend around $15k in trying to build a working Meyer type cell as those are the cost of building a "One Off," which is the most expensive way to go about building anything. With a show of hands how many of you have $15k to spend just to get the base system, consisting of the electronics and the complete voltage intensifier circuit, of Meyer's technology up and running? How many around the world have this kind of money to spend just to get something that can break the bonds of the water molecules and then have to turn around and buy other things so that they can actually make use of it, how many of you out there can afford this? Trust me as I know just what I am talking about for I have built these things and know just how much they cost to have made so I can tell you first hand most of you out there simply can not afford to build a "One Off." This is why this technology must go into mass production so that it will be affordable to the masses that need it most as to just dump the plans online will require the world to build "One Off's," and as I have just shown you most of the world's population can't afford to build a "One Off." So, when a company like mines shows up you are to give that company your full support if you want to see this technology ever make it to the marketplace in an affordable manor so that the masses can actually afford to buy it.


But anyway getting back to the topic at hand. These three ways are what we have to break the bonds of the water molecules and of those three ways only one is ready to go that is not energy intensive and destructive to our environment that has the ability to get past all of the blocking put in place by the powers that be and that technology is Meyer's technology as his patents are now in the public domain. So, the Voltage Dissociation of the water molecules is our best hope towards becoming energy independent right now and people need to get the idea out of their heads that Free Energy means that the technology will be cost free as that is a false view of reality.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #105 on: July 17, 2017, 07:01:24 PM »

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #106 on: July 18, 2017, 02:03:55 AM »
The h2 powered catamaran sure looks great, but its hard to get real info about it. Is it really h2 powered or is it another multi million dollar scam?  My money is that its another scam. You may wonder why as it does sound like a plausible project. Well , unless its powered by luquified hydrogen, produced in Iceland, the project is not going to work all that well.  The boat seems to make power from the sun and convert extra energy into making hydrogen from sea water, which can be used at night as a power source, that's what I think it pretends to do. Well for a start, assuming it has enough solar panels to propel itself and make some hydrogen, it seems that hydrogen is not the best way to store electrical power. Batteries are superior from what I've read on the subject. But the real problem is that they claim to make hydrogen from sea water. In that case, instead of getting pure oxygen as the byproduct, they will get a lot of nasty chlorine gas as well. About as environmentally friendly as mustard gas.  There are a lot of nasty characters out there pretending to be nice and saving the world, keep an eye on these innovators for sure as they sure smell fishy.
Same goes for Peter Painter, burning methanol in a testube and saying it was hydrogen.


Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #107 on: July 18, 2017, 06:48:26 AM »
As far as I can tell there are three totally difference methods to use to break the bonds of the water molecules. One way is known to most in the scientific community as "Electrolysis" which was discovered in the mid 1800's or late 1700's. This is the absolute worst way to go about breaking the bonds of the water molecules. The electrolysis method is very energy intensive, added pollutants to our environment, and it turns good drinking water into poison. The other two methods are not so well known to the scientific community but many of us here know or have heard about. The voltage dissociation[/size] of the water molecules and the harmonic dissociation of the water molecules.


The guy here in this video has the harmonic way to break the bonds of the water molecules https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KdcBoo5f0Q but he has no idea how to defeat the powers that be and his technology is just starting off having to go through their blocking processes designed to prevent technologies like these from becoming mainstream. He needs patents and a whole lot of other things before this technology can become viable and I am not sure he is up to the task of taking on those that sell energy right now.


The last of the three technologies is that of Dr. Dingle, Stanley Meyer, and a few others that figured it out, but it is Meyer that did all the work needed to get past the blocking of those that sell energy. Now that his patents are in the public domain anyone that figures it out can go right into mass production with it so that it is made affordable for the masses as that's the way the markets work. Open Source doesn't work for any technology that requires materials for it to be made as Open Source works for things like computer programs, software, and things that do not really exist in the real world. So if one tried to build just one of these known as making a "One Off" they are going to spend around $15k in trying to build a working Meyer type cell as those are the cost of building a "One Off," which is the most expensive way to go about building anything. With a show of hands how many of you have $15k to spend just to get the base system, consisting of the electronics and the complete voltage intensifier circuit, of Meyer's technology up and running? How many around the world have this kind of money to spend just to get something that can break the bonds of the water molecules and then have to turn around and buy other things so that they can actually make use of it, how many of you out there can afford this? Trust me as I know just what I am talking about for I have built these things and know just how much they cost to have made so I can tell you first hand most of you out there simply can not afford to build a "One Off." This is why this technology must go into mass production so that it will be affordable to the masses that need it most as to just dump the plans online will require the world to build "One Off's," and as I have just shown you most of the world's population can't afford to build a "One Off." So, when a company like mines shows up you are to give that company your full support if you want to see this technology ever make it to the marketplace in an affordable manor so that the masses can actually afford to buy it.


But anyway getting back to the topic at hand. These three ways are what we have to break the bonds of the water molecules and of those three ways only one is ready to go that is not energy intensive and destructive to our environment that has the ability to get past all of the blocking put in place by the powers that be and that technology is Meyer's technology as his patents are now in the public domain. So, the Voltage Dissociation of the water molecules is our best hope towards becoming energy independent right now and people need to get the idea out of their heads that Free Energy means that the technology will be cost free as that is a false view of reality.

There is a 4th way,which i am working on now-submerged carbon arc gas production.
Seems that there is also much talk of LENR associated with it-time will tell..

From this single system,you get carbohydrogen gas,heat and light output.
All these added together should result in COP>1.


Brad

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #108 on: July 18, 2017, 06:50:52 AM »
The h2 powered catamaran sure looks great, but its hard to get real info about it. Is it really h2 powered or is it another multi million dollar scam?  My money is that its another scam. You may wonder why as it does sound like a plausible project. Well , unless its powered by luquified hydrogen, produced in Iceland, the project is not going to work all that well.  The boat seems to make power from the sun and convert extra energy into making hydrogen from sea water, which can be used at night as a power source, that's what I think it pretends to do. Well for a start, assuming it has enough solar panels to propel itself and make some hydrogen, it seems that hydrogen is not the best way to store electrical power. Batteries are superior from what I've read on the subject. But the real problem is that they claim to make hydrogen from sea water. In that case, instead of getting pure oxygen as the byproduct, they will get a lot of nasty chlorine gas as well. About as environmentally friendly as mustard gas.  There are a lot of nasty characters out there pretending to be nice and saving the world, keep an eye on these innovators for sure as they sure smell fishy.
Same goes for Peter Painter, burning methanol in a testube and saying it was hydrogen.


I too wonder about these people but one thing I do know to be true is Meyer did all of the dirty work for us. Anyone that gets his technology up and running doesn't have to go through any scientific peer review panels nor will they have to ask for permission from any local governments as Meyer held world patents which are all now in the public domain. I have been waging a battle in trying to get people to fully understand just what is good for Open Source and what is not good for Open Source. Most people haven't the guts to ask and answer the real questions I put on the table nor do they seem to wish to talk about it at all. Nope, they seem to prefer the head in the sand approach acting like the rules of the markets simply don't apply to them. I put the truth or reality if you will of just what we have to do in order to get where it is we need to go. Some have tried in the past to toss in some dream-like ideas wrapped in words that make them sound like the truth but almost none wish to talk about actual reality.


I understand a little about what Peter Painter has done but I also know that he has already messed up in letting what he has done out before he has all the patents. rights, and all else that goes with it in a complete and legal manor so therefore he can, and more than likely will, be blocked. Meyer didn't make that mistake. As for that boat around the world thing it's true that it would work better with storage batteries as without Meyer's technology the use of hydrogen will always give a loss in efficiency. Meyer's technology is a energy generator and in that it has the power to replace all other forms and methods of energy generation. But it wouldn't be wise to just do away with other clean sources of power generation like solar and battery energy storage systems.


It has taken me a long time to get this far with my understanding of just how Meyer's technology actually works and I made sure to pass on the true science behind the patents. It wasn't easy for me to figure out an entirely new way that mother nature has been doing years before we humans ever even knew what electricity was. In fact in forums like these those whom tell lies about this technology have steered people so far away from the truth of how this technology actually works that the truth seems like a lie. When I tell people that it works exactly like a thunderstorm I get a lot of laughs from people as that is not what the so-called leaders of this movement say about this technology. I remember being laughed out of the room when I talked about how a plant actually breaks the bonds of the water molecules and how Meyer's technology was doing practically the same thing, IE, taking away the electrons from the atoms that make up the water molecules as that is the final mechanism in photosynthesis before the water molecules are broken down into their component atoms. I showed this to everyone and as I said was laughed out the room as it would seem no one truly understands real science and in a lot of these forums there has been a push to do away with sound scientific practices due to the greed and corruption of the scientific community. Some have even told me to take my scientific method, as if I was the one whom created it, and put it where the sun doesn't shine. But I just push all that aside as I understand that the way people have been programmed by their TV's is strong and anything that bucks the scientific norm it taught by the TV's programming to be a scam.


But the powers that be also sent in people to these forums to add doubt in the minds of the masses so that true science or progress for that matter is completely ignored. In 2013 I showed for the very first time ever in a provable way that high voltage can be applied to the excitor array using Meyer's VIC transformer and you should have seen the mountain of negative comments I received for being the first one to do such a thing. What has shocked me since that time is almost no one has had the guts to follow what I did to reach those high voltages as to the best of my knowledge no one has ever reached the 4.2kv I showed I was applying directly to the water bath in the excitor array yet. What was even more shocking was the so-called leaders all banded together to tell everyone I was heading in the wrong direction when I started to make improvements in the amount of voltage I was able to apply to the excitor array. Some even went as far to say that high voltage wasn't the way to go which made Meyer and all of his video lectures out to be totally bogus as that is all he ever talked about, IE, restricting the flow of amps and allowing voltage to take over. I will admit I have been stuck at 9.4kv for a while now but I feel I finally got it and with the next transformer should reach Meyer's stated minimum voltage required to get this technology working which is 1kv per resonant cavity. In the forums when I would show progress all it did in the end was to get me kicked out of those forums. I got a lot of hate for sharing my work and I think that's all due to some paid personnel planted by the power elite in forums like these so that they could keep things the way they are.


People will remember these times especially those whom stood in the way of progress. People have aired hour long shows about how I am misleading people and some have even written books about it. The one thing I do know, though an am not very found of it, is I am the leader in this hydrogen revolution when it comes to Meyer's technology. I am the one whom took the time to build things correctly, I am the one whom spent his dimes on getting the necessary measuring equipment to accurately read and view this technology, and I am the one whom took after the core science behind this technology. Now to be honest I don't like this role, but now that I have a more complete understanding of just how Open Source works I'm glad it turned out to be me as someone else might have gotten it wrong. Sure it's true I don't have all the answers yet but I do know where it is I am heading so I am able to troubleshoot problems in the right direction.


When I look at this "Energy Observer" I think of how things would need to be changed when making use of this method of water separation. First of all they wouldn't need anywhere near that many solar panels and they wouldn't need any hydrogen storage tanks, well, not as many as I think just one will do the trick to act as a buffer to keep the hydrogen flowing at the proper rate for the hydrogen full cell and all water that was created by the hydrogen fuel cell would be recaptured and sent back to the water tank to be reused. It's entire layout would be totally different if this technology was put to use in that vessel as this technology is an energy generator where we have the power of a thunderstorm in the palm of our hands, to steal a phase from Spider Man. One of the drawbacks of using an excitor array is it needs to be kept clean and if sea water was used it would have to be flushed quite often as all the particulates in the water would remain in the cell and begin to build up over time while the exciter array is in use. But to get around that as I stated before all the water created by the hydrogen fuel cell would be captured and put back in the water tank for reuse. So it can start off on pure sea water but over time it would be using water that was generated by the hydrogen fuel cell which would be free of any particulates that would mess up the way the exciter array works. Most people that I talk to about this technology have no idea that this is a drawback in making use of the excitor array, but was something that was solved when making use of the water fuel injectors for an internal combustion engine. Something else people don't understand about this technology is it is carbon negative in that any engine that is converted to run on this technology would run about cleaning the air as the engine was operated as the air would come out of the tailpipe cleaner than the air that was drawn into the intake system. All in all this technology's use would really change the layout plans of that vessel they are using. Plus you are right in that they are planning to make use of that garbage electrolysis method which is a total waste of energy and would spit out all of those nasty gases you mentioned so it's really a bad idea as they haven't the right technology to break the bonds of the water molecules yet.


Now everyone can see that there are three methods of breaking the bonds of the water molecules and who knows there might be more but one must make use of the scientific method and start asking and answering questions with real world experiments to find out if there are any more methods out there that will break the bonds of the water molecules in a manor that is far more efficient that Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. I looked to nature and our creator for answers in how to go about breaking the water molecules down in a far more efficient manor than Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method and I give all the glory to our creator.


Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #109 on: July 18, 2017, 08:25:37 AM »
Well, keep up the hard work and hopefully one day you will have some results to give us, particularly power in vs hydrogen production. I'm also interested in the temperature of the water, it should cool down dramatically. Tinman has kept quiet with his electrolysis experiments, so its hard to know if he succeeded in wiping the floor with Faraday's corpse.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #109 on: July 18, 2017, 08:25:37 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #110 on: July 18, 2017, 10:40:00 AM »
Well, keep up the hard work and hopefully one day you will have some results to give us, particularly power in vs hydrogen production. I'm also interested in the temperature of the water, it should cool down dramatically. Tinman has kept quiet with his electrolysis experiments, so its hard to know if he succeeded in wiping the floor with Faraday's corpse.


If you were to follow what I put out in a pdf file entitled, "The Voltage Dissociation of Water" you will already have what it takes to not have the water heat up. I go over the science and tell why the water doesn't heat up in that pdf file. But like Tinman I too don't share all that much and perhaps a whole lot less than he does at the moment. I will tell you that I have run my setup for over 24 hours straight taking temperature readings every 30 minutes and noted that the water temps follow the temperature rises and falls of the day. I find it pointless to share when I know already that no one can afford to build these things for they will all hit the "One Off" prices I have been talking about, so what's the point in sharing? The price for the transformer cores is $358.40 plus shipping charges for each pair. The cost to have the bobbins made will set you back another $3000 and you still have no wire to put into it or a properly built excitor array to hook it up too. I know people can't afford these things so again why bother sharing my experiments when I know no one will be able to duplicate my work? I posted the science behind all of this and not a soul has even tried to duplicate the waveform shown in the pdf file. The only thing I can do to make a difference is to get the technology to the market place in working order so that people can have a chance to buy it already fully working and ready to go.


Now if the people will not rally behind me then this technology will once again go into the trash bin of history as without support no technology can survive. So, when the time comes I hope people step up to the plate and support this technology.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #111 on: July 18, 2017, 12:32:46 PM »
Ni|Ag|(OH-) + heat = ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #111 on: July 18, 2017, 12:32:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #112 on: July 18, 2017, 01:02:01 PM »
Well, keep up the hard work and hopefully one day you will have some results to give us, particularly power in vs hydrogen production. I'm also interested in the temperature of the water, it should cool down dramatically. Tinman has kept quiet with his electrolysis experiments, so its hard to know if he succeeded in wiping the floor with Faraday's corpse.

Wont be to long,and we will know if we have a system with a COP>1.

The PlazArc reactor is almost complete--testing will start very soon--by this weekend at latest.

Brad

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #113 on: July 18, 2017, 01:10:32 PM »
Ed, don't you already have what you need? I know you are saying that you need to have more volts to get that certain voltage between each resonant cavity, and you need a better transformer, but surely you can achieve this high V by not having so many cavities in series. You have quite a few in series by the look of your videos. Why not just have 2 or three in series instead. The trannie voltage will then split by 2 or 3 instead of 6 or more.


Good one Tinman! You have been busy. Quite a different setup to the original experiments I see!


Beware of using carbon electrodes for under water arcs. You will be making 'water gas' (see wiki ) which is full of carbon monoxide, very poisonous!

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #114 on: July 18, 2017, 03:26:23 PM »
Ed, don't you already have what you need? I know you are saying that you need to have more volts to get that certain voltage between each resonant cavity, and you need a better transformer, but surely you can achieve this high V by not having so many cavities in series. You have quite a few in series by the look of your videos. Why not just have 2 or three in series instead. The trannie voltage will then split by 2 or 3 instead of 6 or more.


Good one Tinman! You have been busy. Quite a different setup to the original experiments I see!


Beware of using carbon electrodes for under water arcs. You will be making 'water gas' (see wiki ) which is full of carbon monoxide, very poisonous!

The gas produced is COH2,and when burnt,the waste is Co2 and water.

Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #114 on: July 18, 2017, 03:26:23 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #115 on: July 18, 2017, 05:58:00 PM »
Ed, don't you already have what you need? I know you are saying that you need to have more volts to get that certain voltage between each resonant cavity, and you need a better transformer, but surely you can achieve this high V by not having so many cavities in series. You have quite a few in series by the look of your videos. Why not just have 2 or three in series instead. The trannie voltage will then split by 2 or 3 instead of 6 or more.


Good one Tinman! You have been busy. Quite a different setup to the original experiments I see!


Beware of using carbon electrodes for under water arcs. You will be making 'water gas' (see wiki ) which is full of carbon monoxide, very poisonous!




Like I said and/or hinted too all of you have allowed yourselves to fall to far behind for me to even attempt to pull you up to speed. Water is being used as a resistor in the voltage intensifier circuit(VIC) thus when you start subtracting resonant cavities you also start decreasing the resistance in the circuit. This action of removing resonant cavities from the series array increases the load that will be placed on the VIC transformer and it will no longer have the ability to charge the capacitor as a result. I think I pointed this out when I had compared my work to that of Max Millers work as the only difference between our setups at the time was he had only wired two resonant cavities in series and I have ten resonant cavities wired in series. The result was his transformer could not charge the negative voltage and in fact it started putting out only positive pulsed DC voltage to his two resonant cavities wired in series. He had no offsetting energy under the curve and was thus pushing amps through his water bath. Now he lied to everyone and told people he wasn't pushing amps through his water bath but the screen shot of his oscilloscope told the truth to those whom know how to read it. In this article I wrote I go over this using photos of Max's and my own waveforms to show that Max is in fact pushing a lot of amps through the water bath: http://aetherforce.com/truth-open-source-inventors-perspective/.


Now the waveform I show in that article I too am pushing some amps through the water bath but nowhere near the amount Max is pushing as all that energy under the curve is subtracting from the energy above the curve. I have gotten my positive and negative voltages to be within 20 volts of each other and the current measurements taken with a micro amp meter shows that I am pushing just 0.6 mA through the water bath. That is not enough current to heat up the water and as a result the water temps follow the changing temperatures of the day. Again I posted that pdf file to help people but as I said you all have allowed me to move so far ahead of you that there is no more hope in any of you catching up now as most can't understand the information that is being talked about in that pdf file as it makes no sense to them with their current level of work on Meyer's technology. All of my talks about the need of balancing the negative and positive voltages simply doesn't make any sense to people so they chose to ignore it. Since no one ever bothered to buy the circuit I am using they don't have the ability to alter the waveforms as I do as a result. It's the same circuit Gunther shows everyone in the 2013 Global BEM interview video which is now going on five years old. You see everyone was given a chance to grow along with me but they refused due to the lies told to them by those so-called leaders of the hydrogen revolution. You all chose to listen to people whom were only getting 10-250 volts to their excitor arrays instead of someone like me who was getting 4.2 kv to his. And as I said before as I went on improving my results the forum leaders and group members sought to have me removed from their forums instead of trying to follow what it was I was doing and I was given the boot.


I have advanced so much with this technology that now when I speak about the inner workings of this technology it makes absolutely no sense to people. So, I again moved on and will attempt to bring this technology to the marketplace as then people will have a chance of being in full control of their own energy needs.


And to Tinman (Brad) if what you are doing now is putting co2 into our atmosphere then you might as well have found an oil deposit in your backyard for you will have become part of the problem I am trying to get rid of in cleaning up the mess we have made to our atmosphere with the use of fossil fuels. You have a consumable product now and I will not so how do you expect to compete with this technology in the open markets? Anyway I best stop posting on your thread as I know from experience just how annoying that can be.
Take care and best of luck to you.


Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5393
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #116 on: July 19, 2017, 04:04:22 AM »


And to Tinman (Brad) if what you are doing now is putting co2 into our atmosphere then you might as well have found an oil deposit in your backyard for you will have become part of the problem I am trying to get rid of in cleaning up the mess we have made to our atmosphere with the use of fossil fuels. You have a consumable product now and I will not so how do you expect to compete with this technology in the open markets? Anyway I best stop posting on your thread as I know from experience just how annoying that can be.
Take care and best of luck to you.

From what Ive studied, more co2 is causing a greening in plant growth. The more we tear down the treas and plants is far worse than Brad generating co2. They tend to concentrate on reducing co2 in the ways we hear but seem to ignore the processes necessary to keep co2 in check naturally.

I think we will see bigger issues than co2 claims like what is going on at Fukoshima Japan.  Look at the strange happenings with sharks, whales, and more strange appearances of deep see creatures on beaches.  In a recent news article Tepco plans a complete dump of the radioactive water into the ocean. Its been being drained into the ocean for years now. Even the winds carry the radioactive air toward the US and Canada. Not much talk about that. Russia and China dont seem to be complaining as its not going their way. There has been a quiet rise in thyroid cancers in Japan.  Im a bit worried about eating tuna as it mostly comes from the pacific. Its time to get personal radiation detectors. If you dig in on the subject, you will see what I see.

If some are getting so good at separating water into H and O, why not figure out a way to separate the C and the O from CO2?

Mags



Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #117 on: July 19, 2017, 07:34:57 AM »
From what Ive studied, more co2 is causing a greening in plant growth. The more we tear down the treas and plants is far worse than Brad generating co2. They tend to concentrate on reducing co2 in the ways we hear but seem to ignore the processes necessary to keep co2 in check naturally.

I think we will see bigger issues than co2 claims like what is going on at Fukoshima Japan.  Look at the strange happenings with sharks, whales, and more strange appearances of deep see creatures on beaches.  In a recent news article Tepco plans a complete dump of the radioactive water into the ocean. Its been being drained into the ocean for years now. Even the winds carry the radioactive air toward the US and Canada. Not much talk about that. Russia and China dont seem to be complaining as its not going their way. There has been a quiet rise in thyroid cancers in Japan.  Im a bit worried about eating tuna as it mostly comes from the pacific. Its time to get personal radiation detectors. If you dig in on the subject, you will see what I see.

If some are getting so good at separating water into H and O, why not figure out a way to separate the C and the O from CO2?

Mags


Okay since you want to get on world events then what about this ice shelf that just broke off into the ocean that is larger than Delaware? How do you suppose that is going to effect the ocean's currents dumping all of that fresh water into the ocean? My basic argument is why worry about something that is out of your control? Neither you or I can control what Japan is about to do all we can do at our level is try and live with it. Now as far as my ability to put and end to the use of fossil fuels well now that I might be able to do something about if the people rally behind this technology I have been working on since 2006. But I can't do anything about what Japan is getting ready to do nor can I do anything about that ice shelf that just broke off as the damage has already been done. All of this is taking my main point out of context.


What Tinman is doing right now, in my view, isn't a viable solution to the problems we face in our world today as this technology has a product that will be consumed. I asked a clear question in that how does this new technology compare to that of Meyer's technology, and which of the two technologies is the better solution to the problems we are facing right now? It's not a viable solution as it would be in direct competition with Meyer's technology which has no consumable products that need to be stocked up for later use. I understand that Meyer's technology has been one of the hardest technologies we have come across in trying to back engineer how it all works. Trust me many times I almost tossed in the towel. But once I got at the core science behind this technology I knew it was only a matter of time before I figured out how to go about building it all correctly. Having an understanding of the core science behind this technology is like knowing where you are going on a trip for once you know where it is you are heading you can plot a course from your starting point.


Now I shared this core science with the entire group in this forum but sadly not many have chosen to take a look at it and fewer still have actually tried to apply this core science towards understanding how Meyer was able to break the bonds of the water molecules via the science I shared with you all. Nope, it was treated as if I had handed all of you something that needed to be put in the trash. So, I moved on knowing I did my part in sharing the core science behind the patents to each and every member of this forum whom cared to download it. But mostly I find people making fun of the science I shared with everyone as they can't understand it and thus it must be something to be made fun of so that others also choose to pay it no mind. But like I said I can't be worried about something that is out of my control for I did my part in sharing that much needed information with all of you and it was your choice to use or not use that information I posted for all to have. I sleep well at night knowing I did my part as I showed another method to break the bonds of the water molecules outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method that I had found taking place in nature.


So, in this context I don't actually understand your argument other than being posted just for the sake of arguing as you pointed to things that are out of our control and we can really do nothing about. Sure co2 is good for plants but we live in balance with these plants as we put out co2 and plants put out o2, however plants don't like co, or any NOx gases and that is something we can work towards solving with this technology. We can also work towards us all becoming energy independent no longer having to pay any more energy bills for the energy we use with this technology again something that is in our power to control. The primary problem we are facing is we are using up all of our o2 converting it into some other gas with the use of any fuel that takes o2 out of our breathable air supply to oxidize that fuel. With Meyer's technology this is not the case as it produces all the o2 it needs for the complete combustion hydrogen or creation of h2o by a fuel cell. So, the use of this technology will allow our o2 levels to rise as no o2 is being used to create anything else but the water it started out with. I hope you can see my point now.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5393
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #118 on: July 19, 2017, 10:12:29 AM »

Okay since you want to get on world events then what about this ice shelf that just broke off into the ocean that is larger than Delaware? How do you suppose that is going to effect the ocean's currents dumping all of that fresh water into the ocean? My basic argument is why worry about something that is out of your control?


So, in this context I don't actually understand your argument other than being posted just for the sake of arguing as you pointed to things that are out of our control and we can really do nothing about. Sure co2 is good for plants but we live in balance with these plants as we put out co2 and plants put out o2, however plants don't like co, or any NOx gases and that is something we can work towards solving with this technology.

Well we look at different data. The ice is going to melt. That is the time line in history.  The elitists want to cash in on it saying we can make the difference. Its going to happen no matter what we do. There are many more dire problems they should be dealing with like what to do about all the nuke plants that are out of date and how to really get rid of the waste materials.

If you look into indoor growing, in japan they pull 1000 heads of lettuce a day off of indoor spiral farming. And the pot industry, they use co2 tanks to get the plants to grow at much faster rates than in the outdoors. So I cant agree that we are near a point that outdoor co2 is bad for plants. But those plants are converting that co2 to make oxygen.

Mags


Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #119 on: July 19, 2017, 12:12:26 PM »
Well we look at different data. The ice is going to melt. That is the time line in history.  The elitists want to cash in on it saying we can make the difference. Its going to happen no matter what we do. There are many more dire problems they should be dealing with like what to do about all the nuke plants that are out of date and how to really get rid of the waste materials.

If you look into indoor growing, in japan they pull 1000 heads of lettuce a day off of indoor spiral farming. And the pot industry, they use co2 tanks to get the plants to grow at much faster rates than in the outdoors. So I cant agree that we are near a point that outdoor co2 is bad for plants. But those plants are converting that co2 to make oxygen.

Mags


You seem to have a problem reading what I wrote as our primary problem is we are converting far more o2 into something else with the use of fossil fuels than the plants can put out. The oxygen levels are dropping for as pf now we are actually under 21%. When I wrote co that stands for carbon monoxide, NOx stand for nitrogen monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen trioxide plants don't really like these gases. Here is a short article on the dropping oxygen levels so we can be on the same page: http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/  Now Meyer spoke about this problem in some of his lecture videos as he too could see that all of these fuels we are burning are taking more oxygen out of our atmosphere than the plants can put in it. We are no longer in equilibrium with nature due to the use of these fossil fuels. Now I hear you about what to do with all of this radioactive waste but we have to tackle one problem at a time. It is possible that this technology also holds the key to turning radioactive waste into a nonreactive substance but I am not their yet in my understanding of this technology.


So, as I stated Tinman is now creating something to further deplete our oxygen levels which is heading in the wrong direction. Sure it looks nice and probably puts on a great show but if it's end result is to take away oxygen from our breathable air supply it's heading in the wrong direction. When you think of any technology that will be used to replace the use of fossil fuels you have to think on a global scale. Solar, wind, geothermal, and a few other technologies out there plus Meyer's technology have the power to create energy without using up any oxygen in our air supply. These are the types of technologies we need to take over the use of fossil fuels, and the use of any Nuclear power plant usage. In fact the entire grid system also needs to be done away with as that is part of the elites energy enslavement system for it truly severs no other purpose.


When I look at these types of disruptive technologies I look at them in a global use scale and ask; What impact will it have if it is put into mass use? What type of waste products will it leave? Are the materials used a finite resource or are they renewable? Will the use of the technology serve to improve the lives of humanity or make things worse?
You see I'm a big picture type of guy and I tend to ask the right questions for I remember well what Meyer said in telling us, "We must learn to ask the right questions." Plus I had a lot of help from my college professors of old, plus my father and mother. This water for fuel technology is the best fit for replacing the use of fossil fuels for the entire globe as it is non polluting, makes use of some renewable materials, and it's source of fuel is really only borrowed as it doesn't consume the water it uses as you start off with water and you end up with water.


So, I hope this clears things up as to why I don't like this new direction Tinman is taking as to me it is a non-viable solution to the problems this world is facing. Now looking on the bright side, "You never know unless you try."

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #119 on: July 19, 2017, 12:12:26 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: