@ dutchy
you said, "(a catalyst that isn't being used up to be more specific)."

Please cut and paste the part of the patent that says that. 

If not, it is an assumption which may or may not be true.

We will know when we start to experiment.

Thank you for your time,
Bruce

Bruce,

It even says that the catalyst has to be inert .....

See the attached picture.

Regards

Robert

About catalyst being "used up":
In the electrolysis reaction the water is broken down and off-gasses, and the catalyst (i.e. NaOH) remains in ever-increasing concentration till more water is added.  In resonance, so it is said, catalysts only get in the way.

And I cain't find what TPU means- what is it?  Total point unity?  I dunno- dumb newbie question...
Keith

When Moab first tested his TPU, Jason and I were skyped with him. During the experimentation process I suggested Moab put a glass of water in the middle.
If the GK4 can cook flesh I think it could operate as a catalyst.

Tpu on a 9volt battery used as a high freq genny.

--giantkiller.

The informative warning post from IronHead... don't take it lightly or write it off. He's been down this road and has first hand experience, thread carefully in this area.

-rapttor

If you want to put something in WATER that will disassociate it...

consider this:


http://website.lineone.net/~aarekhu/electroncasc.htm

http://website.lineone.net/~aarekhu/elecfg.htm


You can literally cause an avalanche of electrons, all being ripped away from H2O, thereby splitting water.

How about using this in PEM fuel cells, the reason fuel cells are so expensive is because they need silver or other catalysists.

This patent, like many many others, is totally bogus.  It simply doesn't work.  If the platinum and/or palladium could be eliminated from catalytic converters by using a simple low power RF signal, believe me...it would be standard practice by now, six years after this patent published.

Platinum is almost $1300 per ounce and there have been enormous efforts by several large auto companies to reduce or eliminate the need to use it.  Palladium is cheaper but four times as much is needed compared to platinum for the same results. 

One of the biggest misconceptions about resonance is that things give off energy at their resonant frequencies all the time.  Does a bell ring when it is just sitting there by itself?  Does a tuning fork vibrate on its own?  Believe me, a bar of platinum does not transmit an RF signal any more than a bar of iron or a chunk of wood or a ball of yarn. 

According to Wiki "NMR", the NMR frequency is not a fixed number for a given material but rather:  "NMR resonant frequencies for a particular substance are directly proportional to the strength of the applied magnetic field."  If this is true, then even the concept that a given catalyst material has some fixed "NMR frequency" is fundamentally flawed.

A big sign that this guy who writes the patent is clueless comes when he says that nobody really knows how catalysts work because they are inert and not consumed but they must be present to complete the reaction.  He is among the few chemistry buffs who have no clue how catalysis works.

From Wiki "Catalysis" definition:

"Catalysts generally react with one or more reactants to form a chemical intermediate that subsequently reacts to form the final reaction product, in the process regenerating the catalyst."

So, the catalyst actually does have to physically be there and does react with the other elements.  It is only "effectively or virtually inert" in the sense that an equal amount that is temporarily consumed to obtain the initial catalytic reaction is subsequently returned at the end of the reaction.

Sorry...can't fool Mother Nature with 50 cents worth of GASFETs!


Humbugger