Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Strange phenomenon — Parallax Forums

Strange phenomenon

MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
in General Discussion


Kinda become obsessed with the work of Stanley Meyer (produced 1,750L of "combustible gas", NOT simply hydrogen) from 1L of water!!!! Long story but check out this phenomenon (steel bars and car battery) at 11:00.
«13456

Comments

  • DigitalBobDigitalBob Posts: 1,486
    The Stan Meyer hydrogen is a total hoax in my opinion. His whole theory is base on resonant frequency that the water molecule will disassociate if you excite it with the proper frequency. The same way a wine glass shatters when you hit it with the right sound wave. Total B.S. don't waist your time.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    DigitalBob wrote: »
    The Stan Meyer hydrogen is a total hoax in my opinion. His whole theory is base on resonant frequency that the water molecule will disassociate if you excite it with the proper frequency. The same way a wine glass shatters when you hit it with the right sound wave. Total B.S. don't waist your time.

    He went WAY beyond that but I am more interested in the Bob Boyce approach:



    Substitute a Prop for the 555s:

  • DigitalBobDigitalBob Posts: 1,486
    These are all hoaxes and scams the only thing that works is standard electrosis using KOH or pem. You have to make the water conductive so the current can liberate the atom's. This is my opinion based on research and prototypes. In an electrolyzer the hydrogen and oxygen must be kept separate via a membrane. Keeping the two combined can be dangerous.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    DigitalBob wrote: »
    These are all hoaxes and scams the only thing that works is standard electrosis using KOH or pem. You have to make the water conductive so the current can liberate the atom's. This is my opinion based on research and prototypes. In an electrolyzer the hydrogen and oxygen must be kept separate via a membrane. Keeping the two combined can be dangerous.

    The Wright brothers had no shortage of ”expert” detractors, either.

  • Jeff HaasJeff Haas Posts: 418
    True, but the difference is that these days, there are plenty of people with the knowledge and access to equipment that will try to reproduce this type of results. If it really worked, it would be repeatable and practical, and you could buy a kit...on eBay.
  • evanhevanh Posts: 15,192
    edited 2018-03-24 09:35
    It may well work, I haven't bothered to look, but the important thing is you are not magically getting free "combustible gas". More energy has to be expended to break the water molecule bonds than what can be recovered when later burning the gas.

    If the bond breaking energy source is in excess, like the sun, then it's a winner. If not, then you're going backwards.
  • TorTor Posts: 2,010
    the important thing is you are not magically getting free "combustible gas". More energy has to be expended to break the water molecule bonds than what can be recovered when later burning the gas.
    This.
    All these schemes are about the perpetuum mobile. You don't have to be an expert to debunk them. As soon as they describe getting more out than you put in, you know it's a hoax. Nothing works that way. Not even fusion, as in the sun - the energy is in there and you know exactly how much it is.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    This is not about perpetual motion. It's about unlocking the potential of a fuel source. It's already established that H20 can be converted to a highly IMPLOSIVE gas.

    The problem lies with; can we extract more energy than we need to produce this gas.

    Using conventional electrolysis, apparently not.

    I am intrigued by Bob Boyce's accidental discovery where, due to a faulty diode in his alternator, AC became superimposed on the DC supply and he experienced a sudden and dramatic performance increase.
    He reproduced this in his lab and this is what I would like to explore.

    We all have our hobbies and interests :)

    I won't get in to the suspicious/untimely deaths of Boyce/Meyer.

    My OP was not related to this. If anyone bothered to look at the demonstration, just after the 11:00 mark. Two chunks of steel, bonded together after a DC current was briefly passed between them.
    I wish they'd tried reversing the polarity to see if they would separate. Maybe not but I wonder if an AC current would cause separation.






  • evanhevanh Posts: 15,192
    Mickster wrote: »
    This is not about perpetual motion. ...

    ... The problem lies with; can we extract more energy than we need to produce this gas.
    That would be "perpetual motion".

  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    Perpetual motion doesn't mean over unity. Remove the water and you grind to a halt.
  • evanhevanh Posts: 15,192
    edited 2018-03-24 15:56
    Over unity is exactly what perpetual motion means.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    So if petroleum cost nothing, we'd have perpetual motion?
  • evanhevanh Posts: 15,192
    Are you talking about money?
  • TorTor Posts: 2,010
    edited 2018-03-24 21:58
    Hydrogen gas isn't freely available in water. It's bond. And the strength of that bond is the problem. There's no indication that the strength of the bond is imaginary, which would have to be the case if we could suddenly split water that easily.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    evanh wrote: »
    Are you talking about money?

    Not at all about money.

    The hypothetical perpetual motion machine would be able to sustain itself, indefinitely, without a source of fuel.

    I am talking about a fueled machine.

    My OP has nothing to do with this but out of curiosity, I would like to perform Bob Boyce's experiment.

    I'm not here to make outlandish claims regarding ”free energy”.

    The Meyer thing is way too complicated for me but it seems like he had some Tesla stuff going on.
  • evanhevanh Posts: 15,192
    Usually one is taught from basics at school and understands why it works the way it does. One then learns that those basics are a solid foundation upon which to judge a new discovery from a sales gimmick.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    evanh wrote: »
    Usually one is taught from basics at school and understands why it works the way it does. One then learns that those basics are a solid foundation upon which to judge a new discovery from a sales gimmick.

    Sure. I once came up with my own ”miracle diet”, dubbed DESFM (Don't Eat So F****** Much) but it wasn't commercially viable.

    As far as I can ascertain, Boyce was a regular Joe and had nothing to sell. No books, no plans, no DIY kits... nothing. Just shared information. Where's the scam?
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    We are taught a lot of things in school/uni, etc.

    There are super sharp cookies in this community but can anyone explain what is holding those two pieces of metal together in my OP?
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    Mickster,
    The Wright brothers had no shortage of ”expert” detractors, either.
    This statement, or similar, crops up in every debate about whatever crackpot of the day idea. I find it interesting because:

    1) It says nothing about the validity or otherwise of whatever the idea under discussion is.

    2) The Wright brothers did not invent the idea of heavier than air flight. At the time there were plenty of other teams working on it. They used to have conferences and expos and steal ideas off each other.

    3) Heavier than air flight was already known to be possible, birds do it!

    4) Heavier than air flight was enabled mostly by the development of the internal combustion engine. With enough power one can make almost anything fly. Even if only by accident!

    5) Those detractors were quite likely the Wright Brothers competitors who would rather get there first themselves and prefer to have investors not give their money to someone else.




  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    Heater. wrote: »
    Mickster,
    The Wright brothers had no shortage of ”expert” detractors, either.


    5) Those detractors were quite likely the Wright Brothers competitors who would rather get there first themselves and prefer to have investors not give their money to someone else.

    Sure. Same reason that OPEC are afraid of someone discovering that high voltage/frequency and zero current can break hydrogen’s covalent bond.

    No wonder Tesla died penniless and his work is not taught in schools.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    Ah yes, we could not have a debate about a crackpot idea without eventually getting to the big oil conspiracies.

    I very much doubt OPEC or anyone else is afraid of "someone discovering that high voltage/frequency and zero current can break hydrogen’s covalent bond." That again would require getting energy out of nothing.

    Tesla certainly was covered in school. Tesla coils, Tesla turbines, Tesla motors, the Tesla electric power distribution system. Heck the SI unit of magnetic field strength is the Tesla. As such Tesla is up there with Faraday, Volta, Ampère, Ohm, Henry, Hertz, Weber...

    Today the one making the most money out of the Tesla name and reputation is Elon Musk :)


  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    Only a matter of time before the word ”conspiracy” popped up.

    Musk actually has more respect for Edison because he actually brought his developments to market (to make money).

    Poor old Tesla wanted to give us free energy.

    Tesla would be able to tell us about conspiracy.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    I may have got to the word first but only because you were hinting at ”conspiracy” already with mention of oil, Tesla and "the suspicious/untimely deaths of Boyce/Meyer."

    Any way, this is all beside the point. None of this is anything to do with the experiments of Stanley Meyer that you want to get into.

    By all means do so. Just don't go crazy wasting a huge pile of time and money before checking the facts as known so far.


  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    Nope... I only have the capability of reproducing the efforts of Bob Boyce.

    This thread was supposed to be about how those bars maintain that magnetic-like bond (just after the 11:00 point in the video).

    I wish I hadn't mentioned Meyer/Boyce.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    Off the top of my head I would expect that shorting a stout wire across a car battery would cause hundreds of amps of current to flow. Before the wire melts.

    That will create a magnetic field.

    That will magnetize the steel blocks and cause them to stick.

    Question then is, why did the apparent magnetization of the blocks seem to disappear after he got them apart? Hmmm....

    Very flat blocks of steel, i.e. gauge blocks, have a habit to stick together even without applying a magnetic field.
    See for example the section on "Wringing" here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_block

    I notice that the blocks used in the vid were indeed machined very flat. Perhaps the magnetic attraction caused by shorting that wire caused the wringing effect which is usually done by other means, see the article. Or similar: http://www.starrett-webber.com/gb46.html

    Here is a nice short video showing Gauge Block Wringing



    Just now it looks to me like the guy discovered a way to do Gauge Block Wringing using magnetism rather than all that usual mechanical sliding around.

  • TorTor Posts: 2,010
    If it can be done at all then someone will replicate it. People tried to replicate cold fusion all over the world, but couldn't. It's not like there's enough Nobel prize material out there for grabs already.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    There might be a PhD in it for anyone that can come up with a mechanism and mathematical model to describe how Gauge Block Wringing works. From Googling around this still seems to be lacking in explanation.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    Heater. wrote: »
    There might be a PhD in it for anyone that can come up with a mechanism and mathematical model to describe how Gauge Block Wringing works. From Googling around this still seems to be lacking in explanation.

    When the guy sheared the two pieces to separate them, they still seemed to be magnetically attracted.
    Just prior to applying the current, the demonstrator easily slides the top piece.

  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    Indeed.

    Perhaps you could buy yourself some Gauge Blocks and play with them. It's quite weird. Like discovering magnets when you are a kid.

    Just now I'm thinking that part of the vid is a bit of a slight of hand. He could have said those block faces were really flat (and clean) he could have said it was like Gauge Block Wringing. I wager his demo would not work with any two dirty or lumpy bits of steel or with even a cling film between them.

    I for sure don't see how you get from that to a theory of uni-pole magnetons or whatever.

    There are well reasoned arguments that there is no such thing magnetism anyway. It's just an effect of the electric field and relativity.
  • MicksterMickster Posts: 2,611
    I owned a machine tool manufacturing company for 20+ years and totally familiar with the gauge block thing. This is why this caught my attention.

    Those are surface ground chunks of steel. I might just get my local machine shop to make some to play with.
This discussion has been closed.