h2opower,
from what i have read of your explanations of stan meyer suppied by ramset on another thred, tell me if im correct, you are sayng that when you are capable of putting oxy in very high energy state that is all you need to seperate hydrogen and oxy(water) ? there is no need for water splitter injector? just the need for thermal heat spark?
outlawstc
does the energy balance (including ionization energy) show an excess of released energy?
or can the ionization of oxygen be 'free' using the VIC method?
is the hydrogen atom really being consumed and gone, like meyer said?
thanks
I believe the gas processor is vital to the injector, as per h20's explanation but I would also like to see it applied to the wfc as in a heater or torch.
Maybe separate the h an o at the cell run the O through the GP and recombine at the orifice, this would also make it less likely to flashback.
The hydrogen atom shouldn't be consumed for all that is being created is water vapor, it the lectures Stanley Meyer says the oxygen atom over compensates giving off the high energy yeilds beyond the normal hydrogen/oxygen reaction. The all copper VIC should be used on the Gas Processor, the SS wire VIC is for use of any gap 0.06-0.01 inches and that is only found in the Water Fuel Capacitor. Note there are two types of VIC transformers not just one. I posted a video of the Gas Processor in action on the other site from MIT.damn, you're actually working on it, looking very good.
Everyone should take the time to read the whole thread as there is a lot of information given in there, plus note I was learning more as I went along. Trust me I really wont re-write everything that I went over in the thread.
Best wishes,
h2opower.
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 7469.2 kJ/mol (@ 4th + ionization level) are formed yeilding 8341.2 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction now is 8341.2-1836 = +6505.2 kJ/molOk, let's assume enough energy is being released in the combustion engine, no doubt about that, it's enough to run a car; the net sum energy released in the combustion process, isn't that quantity equal (or even less) to the energy it did cost to separate the water (1836kJ/mol ) AND ionize the oxygen to 4th level (more than 7469.2 kJ/mol)?
The ioniztion energies is a two way street, what goes up must come down, so it takes the same amount of energy to raise the energy levels as you get from the enregy levels on their way down.
damn, you're actually working on it, looking very good.
In the New Zealand house meeting video, meyer actually did say the atoms are consumed, if I remember correctly.
Ok, let's assume enough energy is being released in the combustion engine, no doubt about that, it's enough to run a car; the net sum energy released in the combustion process, isn't that quantity equal (or even less) to the energy it did cost to separate the water (1836kJ/mol ) AND ionize the oxygen to 4th level (more than 7469.2 kJ/mol)?
you said yourself:
so my point is, I can see that it is possible to run a car on water, but I cannot see OU? Is the air processor a free ionizer and OU in itself?
(save your time by answering this if you already did, don't want to annoy by asking to repeat stuff, but i couldn't find it myself)
this is the link to the MIT video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQvXrxrqshk
All I did is figure out how he was able to use water as a fuel, and posted the results so everyone can enjoy energy independence.
Now I am going to set this up as an engineering project as a result I will not tell you how to build, construct, and/or design your projects if you so choose to make them. The idea is simple, to get as many different models as possible that all work. You will be shown where the power truly comes from and how everything works for the water fuel injector system, not the WFC in use with the gasous type injectors. Read them as a set of rules to follow, anyway you see fit on how to apply what you have read is up to you.
Again I stress that this is to be a engineering type project, the full build of the design shall come from the individual and/or teams that want to work together on it. And most important of all is to have fun ;D.
Enjoy: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-7.html#post47874
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained.html
A talker who makes things happen ...
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=132
Over a year ? lol I had the wire for under 3 months , plz refrain from making stuff up about me .
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1185&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0
So ive seen Aaron talk about the resistance of the chokes , well the 11,600 ohms Meyers speaks of is just DC resistance ... impedance aside ..
Its true that to attain this resistance with copper you need about 45 times more.. or tiny very fragile wire..
Pm me for some
Attached Thumbnails
@Dankie and H2oPower,
To settle all the "I have the better way" (mainly from Dankie), why not put both of your systems to the test at the same time in one place. There can be a few members to wherever it is done to document the event. Then everyone will be able to see who is right and who is wrong.
Dankie, why are you attacking H2o to begin with?
@H2o, can this be modified to work for a home heating furnace in place of natural gas? Do you have any plans on creating something like that? I think that would be a great next step to conquer, affordable home heating for everyone. I don't think I have the know how or ability to build this as is and would need very simplified and specific plans.
Thanks,
Mark
Good to see you are going after the holy grail rather than just worrying about transportation. With clean sources of electricity we can do pretty much anything including transportation.
I have allot of learning to do but I cant wait to see where I can take this myself! I am quite a bit behind most but that doesnt take the fun out of the ride along the way, in fact I hope you all beat me to the finish line but If not I will help bring you there once I get close.
Hi Kippered,
You got that right, if you produce your own power and you have an electric car you kill two birds with the same stone. Energy independence means, for me, starting at home first. If you have a boat house it even gets better no more fuel tank just get the water as you go ;D. Plus for emergency power gen set units can also be made to provide potable water on site. If we learned one thing from Katrina is oil/coal type fuel is hard to come by when desaster strikes. People every year die in there homes due to the energy enslavement game, couldn't afford to pay the heating or cooling bills, and the power genaration companies/energy sellers are fine with that. This is a world wide problem killing millions each year, though there are a lot of other factors involed, energy independence will be a big step in the right direction. Trust me I know exactly what this technology can do, for if you really want to go to Mars this technology will get you there and beyound. In my view this technology is the key to humanity moving forwards again.
h2opower.
Hi Kippered,
You got that right, if you produce your own power and you have an electric car you kill two birds with the same stone. Energy independence means, for me, starting at home first. If you have a boat house it even gets better no more fuel tank just get the water as you go ;D. Plus for emergency power gen set units can also be made to provide potable water on site. If we learned one thing from Katrina is oil/coal type fuel is hard to come by when desaster strikes. People every year die in there homes due to the energy enslavement game, couldn't afford to pay the heating or cooling bills, and the power genaration companies/energy sellers are fine with that. This is a world wide problem killing millions each year, though there are a lot of other factors involed, energy independence will be a big step in the right direction. Trust me I know exactly what this technology can do, for if you really want to go to Mars this technology will get you there and beyound. In my view this technology is the key to humanity moving forwards again.
h2opower.
Interesting,
In my studies the most simplest answer to Stanley Meyer's technology is; Under a controled state change the atmospher to one that is suitable for water combustion
Here are the ionization energy levels of oxygen:
• 1st 1313.9 kJ/mol
• 2nd 3388.3 kJ/mol
• 3rd 5300.5 kJ/mol
• 4th 7469.2 kJ/mol
• 5th 10909.5 kJ/mol
• 6th 13326.5 kJ/mol
• 7th 71330.0 kJ/mol
• 8th 84078.0 kJ/mol
Now let us take a look at the reaction to break and form the water molecule under normal conditions.
4 H-O 459 kJ/mol bonds are broken taking 1836 kJ/mol to do so.
2 H-H 436 kJ/mol bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 498 kJ/mol are formed yielding 1370 kJ/mol.
This is why all scientist say it takes more energy to break the bonds of water than you get from combining them, for the net sum of the reaction is negative, 1370-1836 = -466 kJ/mol.
Now the new reactions after the GP has stripped the electrons off of the oxygen atom are known as ionic reactions. Let’s take a look at the 1st energy level of 1313.9 kJ/mol.
The new reaction to form the water molecule 1st energy level:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 1313.9 kJ/mol are formed yielding 2185.9 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is now positive 2185.9-1836 = +349.9 kJ/mol, so now we are getting more energy out than in. To give the energy level a bench mark for comparison the energy content of gasoline is +4864 kJ/mol. So only striping one electron off of the oxygen atom resulted in a positive energy level but still far behind that of gasoline.
Stanley Meyer said he stripped four electrons or more off of the oxygen atom so let us take a look at the reactions as told to us in the patent.
The new reaction to form the water molecule at the 4th energy level is as follows:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 7469.2 kJ/mol are formed yielding 8341.2 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction now is 8341.2-1836 = +6505.2 kJ/mol
5th
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 10090.5 kJ/mol = 10962.5 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is 10962.5-1836= +9126.5 kJ/mol.
6th
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 13326.5 kJ/mol = 14198.5 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is 14198.5-1836= +12362.5 kJ/mol.
Now this is more than 2.54 times the energy content of that of gasoline, and gives a most probable answer to the question of, “How did Stanley Meyer run his 1.6L engine with an hho production rate of only 7L/min.?†For you still have two more electrons to strip off.
What is your take on the math of the process? Am I right or wrong in your view? This assumes the worste case of the reaction, if done any other way will give higher energy yeilds. For what it all comes down to is energy flux density in this case I measured it in joules per mole. @ Outlawstc
The new reaction to form the water molecule 1st energy level:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 1313.9 kJ/mol are formed yielding 2185.9 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is now positive 2185.9-1836 = +349.9 kJ/mol, so now we are getting more energy out than in. To give the energy level a bench mark for comparison the energy content of gasoline is +4864 kJ/mol. So only striping one electron off of the oxygen atom resulted in a positive energy level but still far behind that of gasoline.
i'm not even going to dignify your "GOD" theory with an answer..
use of GOD either implies that you believe it is the be all and end all way... not slightly ignorant at all... or that it is holy and is greater than man kind... still not slightly ignorant at all
there has been plenty of research into it.
This is getting sad. What the hell are you people on?
Outlaw is now throwing religion into the mix - I guess that is to conveniently fill in the missing bits that his brain can't handle or science seemingly can't explain!
H2O, maths is not proof of concept. The maths is simply figures from which you are forming your concept.
Proof of concept is having a working unit powering a ICE.... don't think you've got one of these have you?
I know exactly what to think about the likes of Dinkie. Kinesis and Outlaw, but I'm really not sure what to make of you H2O. Seems to me like your just shouting your mouth off as many have before, making out that you have all the answers, but curiously you seem to expect others to build the unit! I've heard it all before, people are good at talking the talk - yet to see anyone walk the walk. And I for one wont be holding my breath while you play with your maths.
What I'd like to know is just where all the power to continually ionise oxygen is coming from in the first place?
Personally, like Meyer, I don't for one minute think that you understand the science involved in what your are suggesting, let alone have the electronics know-how to build a proof-of-concept unit.
But don't let that stop you... please, go ahead and prove me wrong!
What I'd like to know is just where all the power to continually ionise oxygen is coming from in the first place?
Well H2O, I've now concluded that you're just as misguided as most of the others around here - what a lot of nonsense you talk!
Why would I have to prove you wrong?
I didn't find Meyer very credible, I find you less so. Proof is in the pudding, not the recipe. Once you have a working model you can then put an end to any speculation and skepticism. I, or anyone else does not need to prove you wrong, you simply need to prove yourself right, by building a working model. Afterall, you made a point of coming over here shouting about how you know how to do it - it's for you to back up you claims, not for us to disprove you. Besides you haven't actually got anything to disprove yet have you... it's all just talk!
I say again, you have nothing but theories until you put your ideas into practise and build a working - proof of concept - model. And again, where is all the energy to continually ionise oxygen coming from in the first place?
And do you really expect an oxygen ion missing half a dozen electrons to react with a hydrogen ion? If so how? Do you expect to get water as a by-product? If so, how?
Exactly what chemical reaction do you expect to get from heavily ionised oxygen and hydrogen? How can they even react?
I don't think you've really thought this through. Gases ionised to extremes won't react as normal, they need too many electrons to stabilise. Like Meyer before you, it all sounds good, but the science simply does not add up!
Outlaw sweetie, has the doctor changed your medication by any chance... because you seem to be tripping on something?
i will answer for you h20
In electricity, a corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid surrounding a conductor, which occurs when the potential gradient (the strength of the electric field) exceeds a certain value, but conditions are insufficient to cause complete electrical breakdown or arcing
references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge
outlawstc
You are not smart enough to take on the likes of me so go call on some of your butt bodies to help you out, or take the easy way out and quit
Great to see you around Farrah ... I dont agree with all you said , but do agree with some of it .
Yeah this forum sucks now , its just a shithole , I feel like cursing @ everybody .... O yeah I remember , thats just what I did for the last few weeks , curse and insult people ., I guess this site does has its appeal after all... best part is you cant ever get banned
Be honest, did you know there where two types of VIC transformers being used by Stanley Meyer?
I went over this on the other site for anyone else wanting to know more about them.
Kineses
In spite of the bickering here,I can still pull water out of thin air and create a system for refueling a water powered car automatically.Now you guys just need to recreate Stanley Meyer's device for pulling water apart.My design could be used to refuel as a car is sitting or running 24/7.Triffid
I for one know that the Gas Processor is the most important part of Stanley Meyer's technology for at the end of one of his patents he says it can be used with any type of fuel, and as we have all seen that the Gas Processor can be driven by any high frequency switching type transformer as the MIT video demonstraited. Without the Gas Processor you can get no thermo explosive energy all you will get is 286 kJ/mol or perhapes a bit more if hho is produced. But that is no where near the energy content of gasolines 4k-5k kJ/mol depending on the grade used. Remember it all comes down to energy flux density and water for fuel with the Gas Processor has far more energy content than fossile fuels.
And kinesisfilms please don't talk to him for he is not worth it lets just run right over him for we are all making great progress right now ;) I for one am not going back for road kill ::)
h2opower
Now I am going to set this up as an engineering project as a result I will not tell you how to build, construct, and/or design your projects if you so choose to make them. The idea is simple, to get as many different models as possible that all work. You will be shown where the power truly comes from and how everything works for the water fuel injector system, not the WFC in use with the gasous type injectors. Read them as a set of rules to follow, anyway you see fit on how to apply what you have read is up to you.
Again I stress that this is to be a engineering type project, the full build of the design shall come from the individual and/or teams that want to work together on it. And most important of all is to have fun ;D.
Enjoy: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-7.html#post47874
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained.html
once again...something is not right here......Phantasm and Farrahday might be one in the same.
I get that you guys have a lot of trouble with people being myschievious here and being that there's no way to prove or disprove anything in this regard, I suppose you can believe what you willNot another annoying "smooth talker" , theres enough of you around here .
I only hope that you can still be critical of the message independently of being critical of the messenger
Thanks,
Hi! H20power, I am new to this forum. I've been reading several forums for the last year or so on Stan Meyers and about anything i could research about him and his work. I never realy wanted to join a forum until i started reading this thread for i find it very interesting. I have been working on this for over a year now. And like most people im getting no where with it. I Think you show a new outlook on the way it should be built and work. I intend on putting your ideas and math to good use (for it all adds up). I hope you and everyone welcomes me here for i may need help from time to time......I am a Machinest by trade and i am willing to help out in any way i can in that feild of work..
Thanks,
Gpssonar
If you reason it out you can only come to a few conclussions, but the primary conclussion is, he is trying to get you to not build a nesasary device found in the patents of Stanley Meyer's for the reason of keeping you all trapped in the energy enslavement game they have us all playing right now
Now I am going to set this up as an engineering project as a result I will not tell you how to build, construct, and/or design your projects if you so choose to make them. The idea is simple, to get as many different models as possible that all work. You will be shown where the power truly comes from and how everything works for the water fuel injector system, not the WFC in use with the gasous type injectors. Read them as a set of rules to follow, anyway you see fit on how to apply what you have read is up to you.
Again I stress that this is to be a engineering type project, the full build of the design shall come from the individual and/or teams that want to work together on it. And most important of all is to have fun ;D.
Enjoy: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-7.html#post47874
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained.html
Hello guys i would like to invite you to my thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Here i released the basic information about the way meyer did to achieve 1000x efficiency electrolysis.
I ask for donations so if you can please donate it will help a lot. I decided to come here and advert you about it.
Answer he didn't used high voltage between the plates. He talked about this to confuse people.
40kv at 1ma = to 40 watts right ?
How about 4000 amps at 0,01volts
would not it be = to 40w?
The key is how to pass this huge current thru water at this very low voltage. You would need very high surface on the plates and...
Info about this here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Please donate
Interesting arguments L505. I'm confused about how you interpret ionization and such. Do you understand it and you say Meyers didn't?
Where do the electrons go? In Stan's case, ground. The EEC is clearly used after the electrolytic cell to ionize the liberated gasses. Stan calls it an "Electron Extraction Circuit", Tesla called it an "Ozone Generator", "Air Ionizer", etc...
The technology is older than the hills, so, it should not be too hard of a concept even when the names have changed which all inventors love to do when they invent(rediscover). like the "Transmogrifier" or a "Flux Capacitor".
In the course of my own investigations, more especially those of the electric properties of ice, I have discovered some novel and important facts, of which the more prominent are the following : Firsts that under certain conditions, when the leakage of the electric charge, ordinarily taking place, is rigorously prevented, ice proves itself to be a much better insulator than has heretofore appeared; second, that its insulating properties may be still further improved by the addition of other bodies to the water; third, that the di-electric strength of ice or other frozen aqueous substance increases with the reduction of temperature and corresponding increase of hardness; and fourth, that these bodies afford a still more effective insulation for conductors carrying intermittent or alternating currents, particularly of high rates ; surprisingly thin layers of ice being capable of withstanding electromotive forces of many hundreds, and even thousands of volts.Improvements relating to the Insulation of Electric Conductors.
I realize that I'm off the mark here, but "Electrons" cannot "Go" to ground. Please remember, unless you are working with high Negative Voltages, the electrons COME from ground.
I can assume that Stan could have been using all negative values, at which point the ground could suck up the higher charged particles. (No need to discuss the theory with you guys, as you understand it better than I.)
@L505
After re-reading your "Questions" several times, so I had some idea of what you were really asking, I can offer a small start. First, there are two ways to create ions. One is to add an electron. The other is to remove one.
Yes there is a way to steal the electron from the oxygen atoms this reaction takes place when you start to have ionization by collision inside your cells works like a chain reaction 1 electron is liberated is recirculated by the tank and again shot in the water again to knock out more electrons.
So believe me or not is your choice i ask for money
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/Timelinewithwhitebackground-1.jpg)
L505
Magic ?
or good engineering??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc
Chet
Funny, I can strip electrons off of oxygen with only 5 watts of power! It's called an "Ionizer"...
Most importantly Stan never clearly explained how 4 electrons are stripped without expending energy. Electrons are not just waiting to be stripped for free. It takes great energy to strip electrons from atoms. That's what people don't understand when it comes to energy levels, and that's why there are all the free mol energy assumptions/miscalculations.
Now if you've discovered some magical way to strip electrons without expending energy, then you've gotta back it up with a sound theory and not quackery or assumption ("they'll just knock off because I said so due to my magical wave theory" isn't good enough).
People assume that it doesn't take much energy to knock off the electrons from the atom and that is simply not true.
Do you always argue with gibberish? This is the post I was addressing in the first place and now you want an answer to something else? Go educate yourself and figure it out like the rest of us! It helps to know what the hell you are debating in the first place. With the few nonsensical words you have written, it is clear you do not have the capacity to ponder such things let alone inadequate communication skills. If you truly believe this is all quackery, why hang around and argue about it? Is it because you are lonely?
Look up something called "burden of proof" and "shifting the burden of evidence" and such phrases. When you are done that, please come back.
Hi Everyone,
I could use everyones help in gain the needed funding to bring our Stanley Meyer's technology for I made it on the Pepsi Refresh Project http://www.refresheverything.com/widget/?i=4f691802-d37c-102d-826f-0019b9b9e205&w=300
Now the future of Energy Independence is in our hands. Please spread the word and show your support with votes.
Thanks Everyone,
h2opower.
from reading the last couple pages of talk about electrons, i get the distinct idea that you consider them to be discrete particles, is this correct? are you suggesting that electrons are discrete particles?
One has to make sure we don't screw up our environment by giving off radiation and/or consuming mass that we don't want to consume (i.e. taking mass out of oceans, one would have to calculate how much mass is lost with millions of cars/airplanes). A proper explanation and balanced equations is still required for this device to ever be taken seriously. No one has provided ANY whatsoever....
Now for something completely different. :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU47blakiiI&feature=related
Cheers all - didn't know where else to post this link.
From what I have seen in peoples capabilities here on this site, with the teachings I posted, a good 15-30% of you here on this site should now be converting your cars to run on water as it's sole source of fuel...is your car converted to run on water as it's sole source of fuel?
But as Meyer himself sometimes said, "You must learn how to ask the right questions," and I believe now I have done just that.i believe i did... just previously.
My company is bringing out a different part of Stanley Meyer's technology which will not be talked about until it's unveiling as I have stated before my knowledge of Stanley Meyer's technology is vast. I did my part in doing what everyone else before me would not, and that was to give the water for fuel technology away for free. Sure you are going to have to build, design, and everything else that goes along with creating this technology for yourself. But if this is to be a grass roots effort then I say to you, "What are you waiting for!" My company already has it's agenda on which part of his technology it will market. As for what I have converted to use this technology I will not say as this is not the correct place to do that in. This is a WAR for our independence, an energy independence, where the individual is in full control of their own energy needs. The time to act is now for you all are those individuals!so that's a no then... your car isn't converted to run on water as its sole source of fuel.
As for a home furnace or those other parts of Stanley Meyer's technology, no I haven't built anything like that as of yet. To tell the truth I haven't even thought of doing so until you just brought it up right now. I will look into it for future projects for I think you are correct there is a need for that too.
so that's a no then... your car isn't converted to run on water as its sole source of fuel.
i find that interesting.
Hi H2Opower
Nice Circuit, but I have one little problem, and you may have already corrected it on newer designs, but there is so much out there that I rarely have time to view half of it.
The "Pass" component shown is an SCR, which once conducting will not shut off until the current drops below the threshold point. Is this the correct part and idea? My only assumption is the actual current flowing through the coil and "Water Cap" is always below the this point, but wouldn't this make start-up a "Problem". (As in, the first cycle would turn on the device, but until the "Charge" was enough to limit the current, the part latches.)
I realize that there may be dynamics I am unaware of and I have not actually built this specific circuit, but I have made enough of this type of setup to know that reducing the current has always been one of the hardest parts (For me, at least...) and I am quite curious. I can imagine that a 2 Henry "Choke" might be enough to prevent "Latch-up", but I didn't want to guess and I don't have enough experience with the dynamics of the "Water Cap" itself to figure it with plain math.
I am going to read and save the last few links you provided, and that may very well answer my questions, but any insight you would care to offer would be greatly appreciated.
TIA
So a electron vacuum sort of,would work?
Hi H20power so what can one do to increase electrolysis in a cell? A guy said to put an oscillator near the cell. I am using tha lawton circuit now but if you have other ideas I would like to hear.
Thanks
Hi,
What you want it to do is ionized the water, for you do not want any electrolysis going on at all. Once you get the water to ionized just like creating ozone, water starts to lose electrons. An atom can lose a few electrons and remain the atom it is, but not a molecule for by losing electrons makes the molecule become unstable and break apart for it can no longer satisfy the Octet Rule.
In order to do this the charging choke must have a greater capacitance than the capacitor that is to be charged. In order to get higher voltages the resistance of the circuit has too increase. In patent 4789661 in the drawings you will see a variable resistor just after the negative electrode and the ground. The resistor is 60n, and in the patent Meyer tells us that with increased voltages the resistance has to go up. This raises the "Breakdown Point" and at the same time cuts the amps going to the system. The 8xa circuit can be modified with a Lawton circuit so your in luck ;). As you raise the voltage more water is broken down by way of increased ionization. That is the key to Meyer's water breakdown method, high resistance to keep the amps low and high voltage to ionize the water molecules thus ejecting very electrons it needs to keep it in a stable state.
There is no normal electrolysis taking place in the method Meyer employed. By increasing voltage/resistance you increase the amount of gas produced.
Hope that helped some,
h2opower
Do you have a working system powering an actual vehicle h2opower?
The secret of Meyer is the VIC and how it is pulsed.
Understanding the principals is more important than schematics.
Does anyone have a VIC for sale?
Hi H2opower about the Lawton circuit you said that I have to increase voltage. So I should do a sort of inverter after the circuit to higher voltage?Are you going to use a system that has just the chokes or a isolated pulsing VIC transformer? If you are using an isolated VIC pulsing transformer then all you need to add to the system is a high side PWM. In the pic of the high side PWM you just need to change the p-channel FET to one that can take a higher voltage. This PWM is hooked up to the positive side of the primary coil and the Lawton circuit to the negative side of the primary coil. That will give you control of the voltages without affecting the pulsing of the transformer.
Thanks
I'm going to create the 3-23 VIC:
A modified EI to UI core.
Turns:
Primary: 50-100 thick wire
Secondary: 30k-40k 38awg
Chokes: 30k-40k 38awg
any suggestions?
Hi H20power where is the H11D1 setup found?
Thanks
Your not going to like this one...
If your planned Reso freq = 1830 hz , the plates alternate at 1830 cps AC based on LC timing.
If you move to a larger L , the freq drops and X changes.
L + C are passive components that react differently to AC = REACTANCE
Xc and XL are 180 degrees to each other and cancel each other
2 pi formulas are sine , circular not pulse.
**A choke does not stop DC...... Electrons
6326.44 + 22996.46 + 23015.04 + 78.54 X 3.77883 nf...
R l + 2 pi f L + 1/ (2 pi f C ) + stan fig?? X C
78.54 OHMS is one of Stans tricks that out lived him and unfortunately stuck to the blanket.
**specific constants are measured at specific temperatures...78.54 @ 25 degrees centigrade, the same sample @ 20 degrees C = 80.37 , the same sample @ 100 degrees C = 55.33 ....
The Dielectric constant CANT be measured in OHMS and NEVER has been ,HOW ? ? ? ,ones a temperature the other is a ratio.
Resistivity ,R ,X ,Z are measured in Ohms but R is the only one used in RC time constant.
If you want 1830 hz ,youll need a power supply and it will need a timing circuit wether its 555 , TL494 or what ever ,it will also need an RC combo on the timing pins.
Stans WFC tech brief has mis info through out , ANYONE can go thru and check .
Have a look thru this site at RC timing and theres a section on tuned circuits.
http://www.learn-about-electronics.com/rc-time-constant.html
Theres alot of people putting in an honest effort into researching Meyers but surely there needs to be an honest approach to the info he was peddling. Put it under the microscope .
There is an actual possibility that the info is BOGUS and not even Jesus can change that .
Square one is there for everyone and unfortunately we're all there but drifting down the same path that a dead man pointed down isnt going to help .
..as you were... and NO Im not kicking you or anyone else in the guts.
Let me give you some info to help understand Stans work.
1st: Stan had three water cells.
1- variable plate cell (non resonance)
2-multi tube cell,alternator powered (also non resonance)
3-resonanct cavity,11 tube cell (the only resonance cell)
The first two cells were amp restricting cells.They only show amp restriction and no resonance action.
2nd: The biggest mistake most people make is that they think the multi tube demo cell worked on resonance,It didn't.
3rd:The next mistake they make is trying to drive a multi tube cell with a frequency driver to find resonance.It won't work,back to 2nd fact.
4th: Another mistake people make is mixing different technologies together, 3rd fact.
This one is the bigest thing I see people doing wrong.Trying to use a VIC coil with the multi tube cell.They are two different technologies.
Let me give you some info to help understand Stans work.
1st: Stan had three water cells.
1- variable plate cell (non resonance)
2-multi tube cell,alternator powered (also non resonance)
3-resonanct cavity,11 tube cell (the only resonance cell)
The first two cells were amp restricting cells.They only show amp restriction and no resonance action.
2nd: The biggest mistake most people make is that they think the multi tube demo cell worked on resonance,It didn't.
3rd:The next mistake they make is trying to drive a multi tube cell with a frequency driver to find resonance.It won't work,back to 2nd fact.
4th: Another mistake people make is mixing different technologies together, 3rd fact.
This one is the bigest thing I see people doing wrong.Trying to use a VIC coil with the multi tube cell.They are two different technologies.
page 1-1 SMTB
LC Circuit
Resonant Charging Choke (C) in series with Excitor-array (El/E2) forms an inductor-capacitor circuit
(LC) since the Excitor-Array (ER) acts or performs as an capacitor during pulsing operations, as
illustrated in Figure (1-2) as to Figure (1-1).
The Dielectric Properties (insulator to the flow of amps) of natural water (dielectric constant being
78.54 @ 25c) between the electrical plates (El/E2) forms the capacitor (ER). Water now becomes part
of the Voltage Intensifier Circuit in the form of "resistance" between electrical ground and pulsefrequency
positive-potential ... helping to prevent electron flow within the pulsing circuit (AA) of
Figure 1-1.
Very Nice Cell. I assume that you have "Tuned" these cells via exacting methods during the build? I do like the way the seals allow direct exposure of the outer tubes but I would think this "O-Ring" type of sealing would dampen physical vibration and alter the true resonance point. Yes or No?
( Yes, I am still watching, learning, lurking and interested. )
I might accept that the "Resonance" would be totally "Electrical" in nature, but noticed in several reads of many areas (I have no true opinion on Meyer himself, as the info is the important part.) that separate units were used for each tube in the "resonance" build. If all were in series, why would there be more than one unit needed? (There were many on the Buggy...)
I'm not trying to be negative, just trying to understand...
Thanks for info, as I had thought you were one of the people that first brought that little fact to light. Maybe my memory is failing me?
Keep up the great work...
h20 power. In post # 248. You saidThe vic transformers were hooked up three and three. That is to say 3 were hooked in parallel.and those 3 were hooked up out of phase. I can see and understand fron the figure 8-11b where the first three go to the outer tube. But dont understand (those three were hooked up out of phase in a three phase arrangement). Could you explain this to me better so I can understand this a little better. I am working on the alternator version now. Also if there were 9 vics in total would the stator have to be center tapped to put in 3 more vics and then put in three more off the 3 neutral legs. trying my best to understand this .Thanks.
Hi H2opower
that looks like a nicely built cell set - i notice that the design appears to work like a capacitor in that the only area of water contact is between the 2 tubes - what about the centerer of the inner tube - is it left open because i was wondering how you circulated the water from the top to bottom sections of the cell.
With the resonant cavity drawing, diagram attached, where is the earth symbolized connection on the water inlet connected to.? I'm unclear of its purpose - is it for setting a electrical polarity on the water entering the cavity.?
the question: On the VIC coil driving the cell - has anyone contemplated what would happen in the circuit if the secondary had a centerer tap and that centerer tap electrically connects to the water in the cell. ?
What I was curious about was the earthing/grounding of the inlet, and as the vic/chokes/cell are effectively a closed circuit.
Even referring to fig 8-11 of the rotary vic on the alternator setup, the diagram clearly says - water bath electrical ground 0v.
For a ground point for the water, as seen on the inlet of the "resonant cavity", is that applicable to a WFC and if so could a ground, zero point, be utilized by a centerer tap on the secondary for as an example for reference, as seen in a simple dual rail psu circuit.??
I can see 2 diagrams that refer to the water being 0v, wfc422da and fig 8-11. Writing by others suggests that on a vic circuit and cell they can get high voltages across the electrodes/plates but little output, so might an area to explore be the potential of the watter as in the 2 Meyer's diagrams?
is a cell a water bath and resonant cavity.?
BTW - anyone find the kontera.com and infolinks.com underlining of "hotwords in posts and the forum a nuisance? - use Noscript with firefox to prevent the scripts for konterra.com and infolinks.com from being used - makes the page much cleaner to read
Would appreciate some data like power in gas out.
I hope your experiments work out.
Here is a recent article I wrote for those new to the water for fuel concept.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/05/water-powered-cars-and-generators/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/05/water-powered-cars-and-generators/)
Kind Regards
I'm not trying to confuse your efforts here, but I believe there are similarities between Stan Meyer's and Bob Boyce's technologies. Resonance is involved, but IMO the frequencies are variable and have little if anything to do with molecular or atomic frequency.
All Meyers methods involve robbing atoms of their valence electrons to nullify covalent molecular bonds.
The VIC steals the valence electrons, then applies an electric field to finish the job.
Meyers made the statement that water is an insulator, and everyone said "he's cracked!"
Well, Meyers wasn't cracked.
There are certain circumstances where water does act as an insulator.
Based on the contents of Meyers' patents, and the wealth of information they contain, along with the doubt and confusion encountered by those who try to decypher them, IMO, either Meyers was a genius and excelled at protecting his technology, or, Meyers was lead by some higher intelligence, and he blindly followed without fully understanding the technology he delivered.
http://www.mareasistemi.com/didattica%2010.html (http://www.mareasistemi.com/didattica%2010.html)
I remember when the Ravi story originally came out, and everyone was hoping to find the reason why their attempts at replicating Meyer's technology had failed. Everyone poured over the pictures, circuitry, and what little documentation was forthcoming, but to no avail. Ravi appeared to have stumbled upon success with no rational explanation. I'm convinced that even Ravi couldn't duplicate his own success since he couldn't adequately explain what he did that was different.
If one goes back and looks at all the material Meyer produced concerning his successful models, you'll find early models where he was using 3 electrodes. In my research, I believe I have found the reason he used 3 electrodes. I have discovered that water molecules bind together to form conduction paths, and as long as current continues to flow through these conduction paths, the molecules stay aggressively locked within these paths, and will resist making new paths. Thus Meyer's statements concerning the insulative qualities of water. No one could understand why Meyer would make such statements, since everyone knows water conducts electricity. I believe this is the key to Meyer's success which everyone has overlooked.
As one continues down this path of reasoning, a sequence of events have to take place to break down water.
1) Apply a 1st electric potential that will lock the water molecules into a configuration that makes them vulnerable to perpendicular forces.
2) Apply a 2nd electric potential perpendicular to the configuration of the conduction paths formed in step 1.
3) Once a number of molecules have broken, and free molecules re-align with the 2nd electric potential, shut down the 2nd electric potential.
4) repeat step 1.
Each of Meyer's models which involves electrodes submerged in water use this method or sequence of events.
Thus the need for pulsing electricity to the electrodes.
It's similar to the domino effect.
If one wants to demonstrate the domino effect, steps have to be taken.
Set the dominos up in a predetermined configuration.
Apply a force in a direction that is calculated to take advantage of a known weakness and the dominos fall.
<By all accounts, it has nothing to do with molecular or atomic frequencies/resonance, and everything to do with circuit/electronic resonance.>
I think the information Puharich gave is more correct. Why should he lie about this frequency 22GHz.
He mentioned it because he found out while doing research.
Hydrogen production using cheap metals (Nickel/Nickel Oxide) at low voltage is now possible and very efficient. Such that a single AAA battery can be made to produce it via simple method.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_0cRYebYU
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-nickel-water-splitter-111213.html
TS
I am well aware of that technology and as always they are 5-10 years down the road.
Perhaps not as well aware as you assume. Afterall, the methodology for depositing thin films of Nickel Oxide on cheap silicon wafers is not rocket science. It's only 5-10 years down the road for those who prefer the hard way. The point is, it is simple and they're doing it N-O-W.
http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/146/4/1407.abstract
The technology is eminently scalable and much simpler and more efficient than any other I've seen. And I've been down that road aways. And its back alleys too.
Hydrogen catalysis don't get much simpler than that, and with the observed output at 1.5v with a triple A battery.....
Well, the results speak for themselves.
TS
oh Did Stanley Meyers said anything about deionizing the negative out of water in his videos ? If he did not then that is what he is also doing there and all negative Ion's are also all negative electrons that are losing there magnetic attraction to itself and the temperatures does play with one of major parts of water !! And sir I dont have my head in my butt you would say here because the findings I came up with is the only explanation to my experimenting with distilled water in my video !! Have or has anyone tried to use one paper clip and one stainless steel spoon to get what I got yet here ? No because you guys think you got all the dang answer but dont !!! Its ok if you or anyone here dont listen to me its fine by me because I got something you guys have not seen or used yet !!! I wish that someone would work with me on my findings but its ok also because some of you guys are lost then and do not care to help me out at all when you got your own heads up your tuss yourselves !!!
Tom
Then lower the capacitance of each cell and reduce the number of cells and you should be in the ballpark.
I guess you know what you are doing Ed. Hope you're right.
If it were me, I'd assemble about 20 fully operational prototypes and give them away for peer review. Those reviews will be the cheapest marketing you are going to find. With thumbs up from all reviewers, only then would I consider mass production.
There are two rules you must follow if you continue on your current path:
#1 If you do not take care of the customer, somebody else will.
#2 The customer is always right.
Translation -- Nobody cares what you think you have. You have to prove yourself to them. They will happily beat you to a pulp if your product does not live up to their expectations. One whiner will end any and all funding you otherwise might have received. That's the cruel reality of "the markets" you speak about. Bring your A-game or stay home.
BTW, these guys (https://www.lulzbot.com/) have far more complex technology; they're OpenSource too. Buy theirs or build it yourself, either way everyone wins.
Well Ed, I'm a little confused.
1. You don't believe in OpenSource, yet you post publicly here at overunity.com.
2. You want to build something that can be mass produced and sold where?
3. You need everyone's help to get this off the ground, yet you scorn one-offs.
I sense a lot of mixed signals in your postings and very little hard-core details such as:
* How to impedance match the coils to the cell.
* How to tune the system once assembled.
* Where to get off-the-shelf parts.
* How concepts like Coulomb's Law apply to splitting water molecules.
* Electrical schematics and scope shots showing the exact needed waveforms.
I sometimes feel this is just your hobby Ed and you have no real desire to "save the world".
I also don't feel you have the motivation to re-create this technology and share it
in a form people can immediately get their hands on and begin to replicate.
And lastly, I doubt very much you have the guts to get yourself and your
family killed over this technology. Maybe someday you'll get lucky, get
something to work and the MiBs will offer to buy you out and you can
live happily ever after. I know in the case of Mr. Walker, he found what
he was looking for and can now go to his grave with a smile on his face.
Myself, I'd rather be JFK'd doing what I know needs to be done. My life
means nothing; what I take with me means everything. Do you have
what it takes Ed? I'm not asking you this to piss you off. I'm asking you
this so you might take a deep look into your soul and define your purpose.
I'd like nothing better than to see you setup a complete system with ICE
and generator attached and fire this all up for the very first time on live
streaming cameras, so the whole world could see you prove this technology
out. I'd like those streams to be so rich in detail that only a complete
idiot could not figure out what you have built. Do it Ed, do it. Let the
genie out of the bottle so it can never again be put back in. Get angry.
Develop a hatred for silence, obscurity and falsehoods. Let it all go.
Make a difference. Make your mark in this 21st century. And just
remember what Will Munny said in the movie Unforgiven...
We all got it comin' kid.
Well Ed,i must say that i was a little upset with Russ my self not so long ago.
I hadnt heard from him in a long time,only to see he posted a video directed at my work i was doing at the time,pointing out mistakes he thought i had made.
If he had of been following the thread at OUR,where i was asked to take voltage and current measurements separately,then maybe he would have understood what i was showing.
Needless to say,he did the measurements incorrectly him self in his video,where he showed the phase shift between two current value's,instead of the phase relationship between voltage and current that relates to power factor.
But none the less,I still believe in Russ,and what he is doing for the community.
I also still have the up most respect for him,and would have a cuppa or beer with him any day.
We (Russ and myself) gave birth to the pulse motor build off's,which was a huge success for the years it was in play. The buldoff's just seemed to bring so many people together,and was a wack of fun.
Russ and myself use to be as thick as thieves,and it saddens me some what that we no longer seem to get together,and have a yarn.
Anyway Ed--forgive and forget--thats what i say.
Brad
As for Stephen Meyer I really don't care what he has to say and will never seriously take a look at anything he has done as my goal was to get at the science behind the technology and yes I did finally got at that science despite Meyer's wishes that no one would be able to figure out what he had done. In order to do this I had to step away from Meyer's work and focus on the use of the scientific method to get at the core science behind this technology. Asking and answering questions through experimentation is what the scientific method is all about and I put in the time, a lot of time, to get the job done.
Taken down due to Armcortex
For us, now we can clearly see voltage does in fact do work and all we have to do is place a high voltage potential difference electrical field on the plates of the water capacitors we make. It's not as easy as I make it sound but at least we now know what must be done and why.
I know this has been a ruff trip for you ...
still looking for the "Papp" water turbine Vid--
As a crowd collectively we can do just as the rich do if we pool our resources together which is what crowdfunding is all about. I am really not looking for Angel investors as they normally come with strings attached. Most of the investors are looking for a return on their investment and are thus the primary reason why we are all in this mess with the climate.
H2Opower
Agree 100%, I met many quite charming, slick talking people who wanted to "invest" in this kind of technology over the years. Save the world they said but the moment they thought they had any control they turned into narcissistic abusive psychopaths.
In the end I came to the conclusion that there is no amount of money they could pay me to have to tolerate there narcissistic abusive bs. Life is short and we only have a given amount of time to live our lives and do the things which make us happy and grow as a person.
Regards
I hear you Onepower as I have been there and done that already. People tried and trap me into working for them or with them with truly one sided proposals. Some of those proposals were so bad that I wouldn't even be able to afford the technology that I figured out.
Anyway, I already have a plan that I am following and at this point in my life I don't think there is anyone that can dissuade me from that plan. I am old and as stubborn as they come and moreover I believe in what I am doing.
Here is how I see things. No one is talking about what I shared on this forum on my thread. I already know this is very new information concerning Meyer's technology to everyone as not a soul has ever talked about Meyer's technology in such a way that I am aware of. Most have brought to me different technologies that really aren't viable solutions instead of talking about what I just shared in an Open Source setting. This is what I see and can go back a few pages to easily prove what I am saying is true. When I say Meyer took this technology with him in death I meant it as I haven't shared how to actually go about mimicking a thunderstorm as I only shared the raw science behind the technology in an attempt to gainer some support for this technology as I move forwards with it.
Meyer was very good at hiding the technology in plain sight as he purposefully left out the primary equation that governs this technology as well as a few other things. He was so good at hiding things that even those that actually held his technology in their hands missed things and thus copied it wrong which is why they were unable to duplicate his work. The main thing that separates me from them is I actually took the time to make use of the scientific method and where it lead me I followed.
Are we thinking in 15% average efficiently ic-engines or 90% ic- engines. ?
https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=10760
IC-engines are not only used as car / ship/plane drive : stationary co-generation plant.( also as range extender ) !
"FE- generator into a motor-genrator wheel with wireless controle"
"FE- generator into a by human flying drone with wireless controle"
IancaIV
It's kind of like listening to people debating the virtues of the best donkey/saddle combination while an F-16 flies over there heads.
the best saddle for a donkey is the one that is most comfortable for the animal not the rider.
an F16 is reduced to scrap metal if the fuel tanks are empty or if a financial group halt supplies.
in our modern advanced society horses are used for nothing more than racing , entertainment or pet food yet for 1000s of years horses were used for transport and work, a much prized possession.
the donkey and F16 is just an example of how 2 worlds are made obsolete by external force. and that peoples choices are not really their own
H2 is still the biggest threat to the same old players. notice all the wind farms around the world ? the same power, has the power and don't want to give the people freedom to break loose of the grip
great to see Ed back on board. ….might be good idea to walk away from the forums tho, doesn't seem to change does it
Anybody care to share results?
Before we talk about more money...
H2O, maybe you have to admit that you were had by a conman and been parotting all those years?
Must be hard on you.
plus a reminder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZLQD4IgQ0
To date, no one has presented a convinsing replication of the WFC. I don't want to repeat any names as not to offend.A Breath of fresh air !!
My current search is for a method to apply an SiO2 layer to the tube. Even if I knew, how thick would the layer be?
Meyer stated in his patent the gap in his test cells were 0.625 inch. That is 1.68 mm. I know of commercial 1 mm thick sintered glass filter tubes.
Alternatively,
There is a solution that is called "water glass" which is applied to surfaces for sealing but we want a porous finish
then, I though I can mix some TiO2 with "water glass" before applying it and guess what,
TiO2 under certain condition becomes luminous!
My work will be totally open source. I don't want any money or fame. The only reason I am here is to bounce my ideas around.
Thank you
LUMINOUS ??I’m using cat litter and drain cleaner for SiO2 white oxide for concreters is my source of ti02. It will be interesting to test some metal oxides with SiO2 for some other projects https://youtu.be/Ip-jDuM25FE (https://youtu.be/Ip-jDuM25FE)
https://www.amazon.com/Loudwolf-Titanium-Dioxide-Powder-Ounces/dp/B00I581UEE ?? (https://www.amazon.com/Loudwolf-Titanium-Dioxide-Powder-Ounces/dp/B00I581UEE)A Breath of fresh air !!
plenty to experiment with here [and many "will" be [myself included
thxChet K
PSanother open source experimenter who plays with "Oxides" and may have some thoughts
Fausto here '[member Plengo
https://overunity.com/15035/crystal-cell-research-for-experimenter/msg540088/#new (https://overunity.com/15035/crystal-cell-research-for-experimenter/msg540088/#new)
To date, no one has presented a convinsing replication of the WFC. I don't want to repeat any names as not to offend.
My current search is for a method to apply an SiO2 layer to the tube. Even if I knew, how thick would the layer be?
Meyer stated in his patent the gap in his test cells were 0.625 inch. That is 1.68 mm. I know of commercial 1 mm thick sintered glass filter tubes.
Alternatively,
There is a solution that is called "water glass" which is applied to surfaces for sealing but we want a porous finish
then, I though I can mix some TiO2 with "water glass" before applying it and guess what,
TiO2 under certain condition becomes luminous!
My work will be totally open source. I don't want any money or fame. The only reason I am here is to bounce my ideas around.
Thank you
Aren’t both ideas valid. I think we should be pursuing both
Okay the thread is now yours so feel free to lead everyone away from the science I posted as I will sleep well at knight knowing I did what I promised so many years ago when I finally got at the science behind the patents.
Take care everyone,
8)
Aren’t both ideas valid. I think we should be pursuing both
I did not come here to challenge you. I am aware of all the hard work you have put in to researching Meyer's work.Still you have not demonstrated a convincing replication. This is your thread and I leave now.
Okay the thread is now yours so feel free to lead everyone away from the science I posted as I will sleep well at knight knowing I did what I promised so many years ago when I finally got at the science behind the patents.
Take care everyone,
8)
I did not come here to challenge you. I am aware of all the hard work you have put in to researching Meyer's work.Still you have not demonstrated a convincing replication. This is your thread and I leave now.
I have that video backed up. "Edward Mitchell and Gunther Rattay Interview #3 with John Frazer". I never saw #1 and # 2 published.
There is a video interview of me talking about this technology when I went to the 2013 Global Breakthrough Energy Movement conference held in Boulder, Colorado herd of it, seen it? If so what is the name of the person giving me the interview?
I have that video backed up. "Edward Mitchell and Gunther Rattay Interview #3 with John Frazer". I never saw #1 and # 2 published.
Thank you Edward for imparting more information.
This the thread is "Stanley Meyer Explained" So, I am here to find out the explanation!After so many pages it was time to get a bit of explanation.
I am not surprised they throw spanner in your wheels. I was following your thread years back on
the ??? forum that shut down. Unfortunately that happened before you spill the beans!
This video on above cloud extreme electrical discharge to the ionosphere I thought may have context here. https://youtu.be/H8HpKIUdki8 (https://youtu.be/H8HpKIUdki8)
And in the simplest construction, for example, like this one, will it be possible to get gas in excess of the Faraday law? (over current) If everything is done correctly.At least twice.So that you can fix, measure?
I have not succeeded yet.
Well, good people told me how to prevent some mistakes.I do not need 3000%, at least twice the current output is more than Faraday.That there was an incentive for further success.
In my humble view it is better to know where you are going instead of just picking a direction and going for it when trying to get someplace.
Getting at the core science behind the technology was my way of doing just that as now I know what is to be done and most importantly why it is being done in this manor. Without the core science behind the technology I had no hope of getting the technology up and running as it was more or less like trying to guess up a solution.