The Van der Waals force (wikipedia link) is definitely an interesting and useful phenomenon worth learning about. It pops up in a number of places, including the feets of geckos, as has been mentioned.
Last year, I had the idea of using neodymium magnets for fasteners which proved to be a success.
This got me thinking about other possible time-saving applications but this is a world of metal chips so I dropped the idea.
The Van Der Waals approach has rekindled my interest.
Tesla himself felt that his work in Colorado Springs would change the planet.
"It was on the 3rd of July -- the date I shall never forget --
when I obtained the first decisive experimental evidence of a truth of overwhelming importance for the advancement of humanity," Tesla wrote in his journal.
In short, as lightning got farther away, the pulses being picked up by Tesla's equipment didn't fade.
Tesla felt he had discovered evidence that the Earth itself contained "stationary waves"
that could serve as a good conduit for electromagnetic energy, opening the possibility of worldwide,
instantaneous communication and global transmission of power through the Earth's crust.
Many modern physicists don't buy this notion, but perhaps the man in the VW bus was contemplating the implications of that:
free power for the masses, anywhere on the planet, without messy power lines cluttering up the streetscape.
Or perhaps he was simply trying to imagine what the hill looked like 101 years ago this summer, when on a crisp summer night,
Tesla and his assistant Kolman Czito, sent 12 million volts flying through their 80-foot mast, shooting bolts of lightning 145 feet in all directions.
The dazzling light display that night ultimately sent Colorado Springs into darkness
after a generator operated by the city power company melted down.
It took weeks of pleading from Tesla, along with the promise to fix the generator free of charge, before the power company reconnected the juice to Tesla's lab.
I think if you want to build these gadgets knock yourself out. I'm just trying to save my forum buddy's from wasting their time on stuff that doesn't work. I'd rather be writing some spin programs.
" this is information "they don't want you to know."" etc, etc.
I'm sad that Tesla's name is sullied with all this nonsense.
I know, what is it with people?
I mean just because MIT professor Eugene Mallove, Bob Boyce, Stanley Meyer were murdered and Thomas Moray was shot in his lab after a government employee smashed all his equipment, people always suspect something sinister going on.
Probably something lame such as extra-marital affairs or whatever.
I've come to the conclusion that it is better that people waste their time on hare brained experiments than do nothing at all.
After all, that is what I was doing as very young kid, before school age, playing with wiring up 6v light bulbs and batteries and wondering why lamps in series were half as bright as lamps in parallel. WTF, the same "electric juice" runs through both, right?
I had no idea what was going on, but it was a worthwhile experience I think.
Rather that than everyone spend their time drinking beer and watching football. For example. Or have their head stuck in video games.
Of course it would help if people had a half decent high school science education. Perhaps more importantly a "history of science" education. An understanding of how we got to where we are today.
It annoys me that many of these "junk science" guys make claims that the scientific world today is some kind of closed shop union that won't except ideas that rock the institutional boat. Which of course, they say, is why no one listens to them.
As far as I can tell, this is far from the truth. There are thousands of guy and girls around the world passionately studying, physics say, and proposing all kind of new theories about this and that from what they have learned. These ideas do get discussed and analysed and tested.
Turns out that it is really hard to come up with a new theory that:
a) Fits with all the experimental data we have collected for a hundred years or so. And grows all the time.
b) Fits with the current theories, which in turn fit with all that experimental data.
I think if you want to build these gadgets knock yourself out. I'm just trying to save my forum buddy's from wasting their time on stuff that doesn't work. I'd rather be writing some spin programs.
Should be easy to convince me. All you need to do is pass me a link to a SCIENTIFIC debunking of the claim that alternate methods of electrolysis can yield more combustible gas from water.
I thought you were pleading with us earlier to skip the junk science thing and concentrate on the Van Der Waal effect.
But as you insist on returning to it yourself...
By all means try some alternate methods of electrolysis that may or may not be more efficient than the current state of the art.
You never know, everyone involved in that may have missed a trick or two.
As long as you are not expecting more energy out that you put in, i.e. over unity, or greater than 100% efficiency, I'm with you.
I can't help thinking though that, as thousands of guys, smarter than us, have been looking at this for a 100 years or more, the prospects of a better outcome are slim.
No, I am politely responding to those who have gone to the trouble to voice their opinions. I agree that this is not the right place for this topic but I disagree about this being junk science.
All you need to do is pass me a link to a SCIENTIFIC debunking of the claim that alternate methods of electrolysis can yield more combustible gas from water.
Actually, the onus is on the inventors of new technologies to prove that the new technologies work, not the other way around. Otherwise, the scientific establishment would be completely consumed with debunking crackpot theories, instead of advancing their art under rigorous, peer-reviewed circumstances.
An immediate red flag for any proposed technology is a conspiracy-ridden claim that it's being suppressed by the scientific establishment, the energy cartel, the government, or whatever other dark force comes to mind. Whenever I see something like this, I know it's time to move on.
Besides, if there was any money to be made from a technology invented by some smart but naive "regular guy," the Big Boys wouldn't try to suppress it; they'd just steal it. Think about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper, and you'll understand what I mean.
I don't know. This is a technical forum. All kinds of technology and techniques get discussed here. I hope that is OK. It probably helps if one's projects or experiments involve Parallax products. After all Parallax hosts the show.
Certainly the video you linked in your opening post was 4 hours of junk science.
NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Originally in place to make sure that weights and measures were accurate and people were not cheating each other when trading. All civilized countries have such a thing. It is good.
Yes, there is a question mark over NIST when it comes to a certain cryptographic standard. But hey, corruption is everywhere. We have to keep an eye out for it.
When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of your electrolysis experiments you are going to need NIST or some equivalent to reference the measurements to.
NIST: I still haven't forgotten about that ridiculous Shyam Sunder but that topic is even less appropriate for here and has been beaten to death, anyway.
You could always build the hydrogen generator using a prop for a PWM and trigger some Mosfets. This will allow you to use the 30VDC your amps will be low if keep the pulse width narrow. But as you increase the pulse width the amps will shoot up. The current is what breaks the H2O bond. Then you will get a minimal amount of brown's gas. Look up browns gas generator. So in the end this is no gimmick that going to yield you tons of gas with no current.
As for electrolysis.. I did a lot of that as a boy (we could have chemistry kits back then, and bunsenburners and everything). And much later, at high school and college we did a lot of more or less insane electrolysis experiments in the lab when there were no teachers around. With DC and AC and stuff I don't remember anymore. But sausages, at least, were involved. Anyway, at no point did I do careful measurements of exactly how much gas was generated, but if one of those experiments had suddenly generated substantially more than normal then I'm sure I or someone would have noticed.
As for electrolysis.. I did a lot of that as a boy (we could have chemistry kits back then, and bunsenburners and everything). And much later, at high school and college we did a lot of more or less insane electrolysis experiments in the lab when there were no teachers around. With DC and AC and stuff I don't remember anymore. But sausages, at least, were involved. Anyway, at no point did I do careful measurements of exactly how much gas was generated, but if one of those experiments had suddenly generated substantially more than normal then I'm sure I or someone would have noticed.
I feel like we're pushing our luck with this topic but I just want to mention that it was also frequency related. Bob's boat would take off "like it was turbocharged" when the motor hit a certain RPM (bad rectifier diode in the alternator). The interview with him is in one of my first posts.
He scoped the frequency and reproduced it on the bench. Each cell would kick in at a different frequency so he constructed circuitry for each cell, to suit.
I do admire Mickster's open mindedness. Always challenge accepted wisdom. Always questions things, even if in a round about way it leads you to the same conclusion.
Because occasionally you will discover something new. I have certainly found this to be the case in business, and my culinary adventures. And even in science and technology, it is a useful skill, because approaching understanding from a different angle, even if it eventually leads you to the same conclusion, you will have achieved complete mastery of the subject in the process. Almost as if you yourself were the first one discovering Van der Waals force.
For example, using structured programming in the context of embedded control is completely asinine. Mickster is enough of an independent thinker to know this. A lot of people here are not.
"using structured programming in the context of embedded control ..."
Hey, wait just a minute there. True structured programming is a philosophy and discipline, not a particular programming language or set of rules. It's a very useful way to design and implement programs including those involved in embedded control applications. I've written and debugged large complex programs using structured programming and an assembly language. The structured programming part helped me find bugs before I even got to testing. Read up about PL360 which is really a structured assembly language.
"What we are seeing is hydrogen bonds breaking, not the molecule bonds of H2O but the Van Der Waals hydrogen bonds. They have stored energy like a spring and the electricity is breaking the hydrogen bonds"
As for electrolysis.. I did a lot of that as a boy (we could have chemistry kits back then, and bunsenburners and everything). And much later, at high school and college we did a lot of more or less insane electrolysis experiments in the lab when there were no teachers around. With DC and AC and stuff I don't remember anymore. But sausages, at least, were involved. Anyway, at no point did I do careful measurements of exactly how much gas was generated, but if one of those experiments had suddenly generated substantially more than normal then I'm sure I or someone would have noticed.
Electrolysis experiments with sausages? I recall our school principal cooking hot dogs between two rows of nails with 120VAC at some event in grade 7 or 8. Of course that was before safety enforcement and legal liability concerns got totally ridiculous
...using structured programming in the context of embedded control is completely asinine. Mickster is enough of an independent thinker to know this. A lot of people here are not.
I have a few questions about that ridiculous statement:
1) Please describe one situation where using the principles of structured programming does not work or is a bad idea for other reasons.
2) Please show us an example in actual code.
3) What is the difference between code used in embedded control and other code?
4) What you have just said there is that a lot of us forum members are stupid. Why the insult?
Comments
Last year, I had the idea of using neodymium magnets for fasteners which proved to be a success.
This got me thinking about other possible time-saving applications but this is a world of metal chips so I dropped the idea.
The Van Der Waals approach has rekindled my interest.
" this is information "they don't want you to know."" etc, etc.
I'm sad that Tesla's name is sullied with all this nonsense.
I know, what is it with people?
I mean just because MIT professor Eugene Mallove, Bob Boyce, Stanley Meyer were murdered and Thomas Moray was shot in his lab after a government employee smashed all his equipment, people always suspect something sinister going on.
Probably something lame such as extra-marital affairs or whatever.
I blame Hollywood!
I've come to the conclusion that it is better that people waste their time on hare brained experiments than do nothing at all.
After all, that is what I was doing as very young kid, before school age, playing with wiring up 6v light bulbs and batteries and wondering why lamps in series were half as bright as lamps in parallel. WTF, the same "electric juice" runs through both, right?
I had no idea what was going on, but it was a worthwhile experience I think.
Rather that than everyone spend their time drinking beer and watching football. For example. Or have their head stuck in video games.
Of course it would help if people had a half decent high school science education. Perhaps more importantly a "history of science" education. An understanding of how we got to where we are today.
It annoys me that many of these "junk science" guys make claims that the scientific world today is some kind of closed shop union that won't except ideas that rock the institutional boat. Which of course, they say, is why no one listens to them.
As far as I can tell, this is far from the truth. There are thousands of guy and girls around the world passionately studying, physics say, and proposing all kind of new theories about this and that from what they have learned. These ideas do get discussed and analysed and tested.
Turns out that it is really hard to come up with a new theory that:
a) Fits with all the experimental data we have collected for a hundred years or so. And grows all the time.
b) Fits with the current theories, which in turn fit with all that experimental data.
Should be easy to convince me. All you need to do is pass me a link to a SCIENTIFIC debunking of the claim that alternate methods of electrolysis can yield more combustible gas from water.
Edit: NIST doesn't count.
IOW you just ran a Google and came up with NOTHING. I did the same thing long before I became interested.
I thought you were pleading with us earlier to skip the junk science thing and concentrate on the Van Der Waal effect.
But as you insist on returning to it yourself...
By all means try some alternate methods of electrolysis that may or may not be more efficient than the current state of the art.
You never know, everyone involved in that may have missed a trick or two.
As long as you are not expecting more energy out that you put in, i.e. over unity, or greater than 100% efficiency, I'm with you.
I can't help thinking though that, as thousands of guys, smarter than us, have been looking at this for a 100 years or more, the prospects of a better outcome are slim.
What on Earth is wrong with NIST? By the way.
NIST is US Government. What can be right with it.
Lol, you aren't listening.
An immediate red flag for any proposed technology is a conspiracy-ridden claim that it's being suppressed by the scientific establishment, the energy cartel, the government, or whatever other dark force comes to mind. Whenever I see something like this, I know it's time to move on.
Besides, if there was any money to be made from a technology invented by some smart but naive "regular guy," the Big Boys wouldn't try to suppress it; they'd just steal it. Think about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper, and you'll understand what I mean.
-Phil
Certainly the video you linked in your opening post was 4 hours of junk science.
NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Originally in place to make sure that weights and measures were accurate and people were not cheating each other when trading. All civilized countries have such a thing. It is good.
Yes, there is a question mark over NIST when it comes to a certain cryptographic standard. But hey, corruption is everywhere. We have to keep an eye out for it.
When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of your electrolysis experiments you are going to need NIST or some equivalent to reference the measurements to.
Let's not go there.
I feel like we're pushing our luck with this topic but I just want to mention that it was also frequency related. Bob's boat would take off "like it was turbocharged" when the motor hit a certain RPM (bad rectifier diode in the alternator). The interview with him is in one of my first posts.
He scoped the frequency and reproduced it on the bench. Each cell would kick in at a different frequency so he constructed circuitry for each cell, to suit.
Don't feed him. He'll just keep moving the goal posts.
THIRD post of the thread, my FIRST post regarding hydrogen and it was a response to DigitalBob.
Did you even watch the video?
Moderators, I really hate to say it, but perhaps it's time for this thread to be sunk -- with prejudice and an explanation, of course.
-Phil
Because occasionally you will discover something new. I have certainly found this to be the case in business, and my culinary adventures. And even in science and technology, it is a useful skill, because approaching understanding from a different angle, even if it eventually leads you to the same conclusion, you will have achieved complete mastery of the subject in the process. Almost as if you yourself were the first one discovering Van der Waals force.
For example, using structured programming in the context of embedded control is completely asinine. Mickster is enough of an independent thinker to know this. A lot of people here are not.
One needs to understand that wisdom before one ever hopes to challenge it.
Hey, wait just a minute there. True structured programming is a philosophy and discipline, not a particular programming language or set of rules. It's a very useful way to design and implement programs including those involved in embedded control applications. I've written and debugged large complex programs using structured programming and an assembly language. The structured programming part helped me find bugs before I even got to testing. Read up about PL360 which is really a structured assembly language.
"What we are seeing is hydrogen bonds breaking, not the molecule bonds of H2O but the Van Der Waals hydrogen bonds. They have stored energy like a spring and the electricity is breaking the hydrogen bonds"
Electrolysis experiments with sausages? I recall our school principal cooking hot dogs between two rows of nails with 120VAC at some event in grade 7 or 8. Of course that was before safety enforcement and legal liability concerns got totally ridiculous
1) Please describe one situation where using the principles of structured programming does not work or is a bad idea for other reasons.
2) Please show us an example in actual code.
3) What is the difference between code used in embedded control and other code?
4) What you have just said there is that a lot of us forum members are stupid. Why the insult?