Hi guys,

I am starting this thread as more a less a continuation from Browns gas/HHO to discuss something that could potentially be a new discovery. For those of you who followed the Browns gas thread I would like to discuss the possible implications of Hydronium and what part if any it plays in the production of Brown's gas and/or over unity. For those who have not followed the thread I would recommend reading it.

There is currently little to no scientific information about Hydronium other than the fact that it occurs in the tail of a comet as star dust and even less information on experiments.

So...Does Hydronium play a part on the production of Browns gas and can it be used as a fuel? How stable is Hydronium and what can be done with it?

If Hydronium is a fuel how can it be produced or saturated in water to a point where it becomes useful in a Meyer WFC?

Any thoughts, theories, however far stretched is acceptable..

Any arguments for and against is all part of the learning process..

NB: The formula for Hydronium in a water molecule is H3O2 but to clarify we believe through discussions in Browns gas forum that when the water is electrolysed that the H3O2 in fact becomes a Hydronium ION and that it is the Hydronium ION in gaseous state that is in fact browns gas.

Well I guess I have never heard of Hydronium before, so I did some looking.  Found these vids:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMpys501Tp4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijNLy0PiIkc

I see in the one video he talks about the hydrogen ion being formed from an acid.  Browns gas cells usually have an electrolyte in the water so that makes sense.  In Stan Meyers system he used the "electron extraction circuit" in the gas gun and directly on the WFC.  A light bulb was used to consume the electrons.  
[attachment=4292]

Perhaps this is all done to create Hydronium?  

Quote from firepinto on September 27th, 2013, 07:26 PM

I see in the one video he talks about the hydrogen ion being formed from an acid.  Browns gas cells usually have an electrolyte in the water so that makes sense.  In Stan Meyers system he used the "electron extraction circuit" in the gas gun and directly on the WFC.  A light bulb was used to consume the electrons.  

Perhaps this is all done to create Hydronium?

Great observation firepinto and this is exactly the sort of things we need to be looking at. I can't think of any other reason why Meyer would have wanted to consume extra electrons if for not that reason...

Well I thought the definition or some information would be good for starters here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronium
I think it could be one of the basic building blocks, like carbon.

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 27th, 2013, 07:36 PM

Well I thought the definition or some information would be good for starters here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronium
I think it could be one of the basic building blocks, like carbon.

Great information...

I especially paid attention to this

" This cation is often used to represent the nature of the proton in aqueous solution, where the proton is highly solvated (bound to a solvent). The reality is far more complicated, and a proton is bound to several molecules of water, such that other descriptions such as H5O2+, H7O3+ and H9O4+ are increasingly accurate descriptions of the environment of a proton in water.[3] The ion H
3O+
 has been detected in the gas phase.[4]

So in reality we are talking about a solvated proton fuel..interesting!

Also from wiki: The hydronium ion has been found in higher atmospheric layers.


"Some hydration structures are quite large: the H3O+ (H2O)
20 magic ion number structure (called magic because of its increased stability with respect to hydration structures involving a comparable number of water molecules) might place the hydronium inside a dodecahedral cage."

Also if Chris Eckman is correct then he has shown that Hydronium in a gaseous state is in fact stable for up to 15 minutes or more where as a paper bag experiment seems to indicate much much longer - see Brown gas thread for more on this discussion.

From Browns gas discussion...

Quote from Farrah Day on September 27th, 2013, 10:54 AM

Well H3O+ is not going to be very stable and will be looking for a chance to gain an electron from somewhere. It would likely do this instantly when coming into contact with a metal. The following reaction:

2H3O+ + e    =    2H2O + 2H   = H + H = H2 + energy!

The atomic hydrogen is extremely unstable and will very quickly bond with another hydrogen atom to give H2.

So it seems we really might need to give some serious consideration as to whether or not the hydronium ion plays a part in the grand scheme of things.

Hey Farrah,

It has been shown that Brown's gas at least is stable for a minimum of 15 minutes in Chris Eckmans experimentation and much much longer in paper bag experiments. If Browns gas is not hydronium what is it?

Either Hydronium is stable in a gaseous cluster or we are looking at a dead end.

I could be reaching but Hydronium could also be the basis for  Blacklightpower's energy technology. CEO of Blacklight power claims these as a being a new discovery and calls them Hydrinos.

Link

Only logic:

If there are Hydronium variants with up to 20 H2O in its cluster..then its reasonable to think there is a decay ladder towards a single or less.

And its reasonable that that ladder unrafles slower in a saturated environment of more of these clusters.

If a paper bag insulates well, then maybe thats the next clue that the amount of free electrons is the key of how stable the clusters stay?

----------
My question is, how do we recognize the stuff itself?


If looking at a battery....if the minus side gives of electrons...the plus side gives of positrons? no, protons (H+)? No, it sucks electrons. Its a vacuum cleaner, so keep the out coming gases from a WFC placed in something positively charged and we may have some way to preserve them longer.
 

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 01:34 AM

If there are Hydronium variants with up to 20 H2O in its cluster..then its reasonable to think there is a decay ladder towards a single or less.

And its reasonable that that ladder unrafles slower in a saturated environment of more of these clusters.

If a paper bag insulates well, then maybe thats the next clue that the amount of free electrons is the key of how stable the clusters stay?

----------
My question is, how do we recognize the stuff itself?

Which is another great reason for putting the gases to the test in a combustion engine the moment they're produced by your WFC.
If the engine revs up = check & record all input data and parameters to/of the process.
When you have the recipe for the secret sauce, set it in stone and let us know.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 01:34 AM

Only logic:

If there are Hydronium variants with up to 20 H2O in its cluster..then its reasonable to think there is a decay ladder towards a single or less.

Definitively agree with that!

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 01:34 AM

And its reasonable that that ladder unrafles slower in a saturated environment of more of these clusters.

Makes perfect sense!

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 01:34 AM

If a paper bag insulates well, then maybe thats the next clue that the amount of free electrons is the key of how stable the clusters stay?

Great question. How do we measure free electrons?

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 01:34 AM

My question is, how do we recognize the stuff itself?

Also another great question. The only freely available method without too much complicated apparatus is the paper bag method or a balloon test ...same as the paper bag just a different medium. But the overall implications really leave a hell of a lot of unanswered questions!

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 01:34 AM

If looking at a battery....if the minus side gives of electrons...the plus side gives of positrons? no, protons (H+)? No, it sucks electrons. Its a vacuum cleaner, so keep the out coming gases from a WFC placed in something positively charged and we may have some way to preserve them longer.

Yeah it certainly get's confusing from here on out and we are pretty much dealing with conjecture. Not even our own scientists know much about this stuff. Gerald Pollack seems to think that the overall charge of the H3O2 is negative..does this mean then that the overall charge becomes positive when it becomes ionized? we really need to know like you said so we can gear our equipment correctly

Quote from Lynx on September 28th, 2013, 01:49 AM

Which is another great reason for putting the gases to the test in a combustion engine the moment they're produced by your WFC.
If the engine revs up = check & record all input data and parameters to/of the process.
When you have the recipe for the secret sauce, set it in stone and let us know.

I think it would be great to get some basic tests done first. Like say subject ordinary distilled water to different processes like infrared light, using electropolished vs non electropolished plates/tubes etc. Run the test's for a given amount of time with given electronics and record exactly how much Hydronium (Brown's gas) you get.

I am in the process of constructing a pretty advanced device but it's going to take precise engineering and unless I can get someone to lathe it like a local university I don't stand much of a chance to actually make it.

Eckman's original paper for anyone that has not read it:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F21825897%2F954570892%2Fname%2FEckman_-_Plasma_Orbital_Expansion_of_the_Electrons_in_Water.pdf&ei=HqlGUv_sE47xhQe20ICoBA&usg=AFQjCNEgoCjm0QazABjcUSmI4lis3W_InA&sig2=XGsjeu0Mlc6KBMUEcxJWAQ

There is a saying that, 'the simplest explanation is often the correct one'. So with this in mind let's try not to overcomplicate matters by looking too deep.

I think that Eckman's paper does precisely this. There are some blatant errors in his paper regarding the science, that I picked up on the first time I read it, so straight away I knew I was not dealing with someone who had any great experience in the field. So be aware that though it may look like a very scientific paper, written by a competent scientist, if some of the more basic science is flawed, that must certainly raise questions about his Plasma Expanded Water theory!

You have to understand that much of the paper is just conjecture, and that contrary to what he states, much of it can be explained by current chemistry.

All this talk about Plasma Orbital Expansion of Electrons in Water, and indeed isomers makes for a very intriguing paper, but why has he/ would he completely overlook hydronium.

We know it fits the bill for being that peak on the mass spectrometer graph, and we know that when water ionises, hydronium is present.

So if we apply Occam's Razor: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

The simplest, most logical conclusion is that we are not dealing with anything more mysterious than the hydronium ion, and it gets where it gets exactly the same way as the water vapour does.

Eckman might say it is stable for 15 minutes, but as far as I'm concerned it is stable until it meets an electron source, i.e., a metal surface.

Of course, the other point to make is that if it is simply hydronium, then this should be present in the gases resulting from any old common-duct electrolyser, pulsed or not.

I.E. keep the outgoing hose from the WFC to the engine positively charged.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 04:29 AM

I.E. keep the outgoing hose from the WFC to the engine positively charged.

That's not needed if the gases are produced on demand, they would have been long gone out the exhaust pipe before any decay of sort would have taken place.
They're explosive enough as is straight out from the WFC, take my word for it.
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=562&pid=14886#pid14886

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 04:29 AM

I.E. keep the outgoing hose from the WFC to the engine positively charged.

Less complicated: A non-metal tube would probably suffice.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 05:41 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 04:29 AM

I.E. keep the outgoing hose from the WFC to the engine positively charged.

Less complicated: A non-metal tube would probably suffice.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

Eckman's original paper for anyone that has not read it:

Thanks for posting :)

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

There are some blatant errors in his paper regarding the science, that I picked up on the first time I read it, so straight away I knew I was not dealing with someone who had any great experience in the field. So be aware that though it may look like a very scientific paper, written by a competent scientist, if some of the more basic science is flawed, that must certainly raise questions about his Plasma Expanded Water theory!

I have to agree if the science is flawed then it leaves alot to be desired. I am however curious to find out exactly what it is you think is flawed..specifics

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

All this talk about Plasma Orbital Expansion of Electrons in Water, and indeed isomers makes for a very intriguing paper, but why has he/ would he completely overlook hydronium.

Also a good question and I think perhaps there is more than one answer. Firstly I can't say Eckman was privy to Gerard Pollacks work and most likely was unaware of the state of the molecule prior to it turning to Brown's gas. He has just gone about his business observing what was taking place and apart from a general theory of what was occurring probably didn't realize or hadn't covered the ground that Pollack had. It's only since then and looking at it from our perspective that we can really start to piece things together, and say wait a minute if this is that then this is that and so forth and so on .. you get my drift. The other reason is as far as he was concerned it was a cluster of Rydberg matter this much he knew but how exactly these formed and what lead them to become Brown's gas is not revealed from the spectrometer graphs and is not immediatly obvious. He could have also thought that the gas formed as a direct result of electrolysis and not necessarily present in water as H3O2 as we hypothesize.

I think in all it was a pretty honest attempt at explaining a zero point energy while honoring the persons who first became aware of it while still maintaining some professional integrity.

My other answer is I don't have the first damn clue. Maybe he was an early riser and liked to pack in the morning. And maybe he didn't have any friends. I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the travel habits of William Santiago...oh wait that's a few good men..never mind!

Or thirdly you could be Eckman trying to discredit your own theory :p

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

We know it fits the bill for being that peak on the mass spectrometer graph, and we know that when water ionises, hydronium is present.

Agreed!

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

So if we apply Occam's Razor: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

The simplest, most logical conclusion is that we are not dealing with anything more mysterious than the hydronium ion, and it gets where it gets exactly the same way as the water vapour does.

Eckman might say it is stable for 15 minutes, but as far as I'm concerned it is stable until it meets an electron source, i.e., a metal surface.

What makes you think it becomes immediately unstable the minute it meets an electron?

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

Of course, the other point to make is that if it is simply hydronium, then this should be present in the gases resulting from any old common-duct electrolyser, pulsed or not.

Yes, and it does..in roughly 15% ratio. The question becomes now that we know what we are trying to achieve how we can go about doing it!

I would like to do a vote with everyone to see if there is an agreement among us that Brown's gas is indeed Hydronium. Is this possible?

Quote from zaneaussie on September 28th, 2013, 08:39 AM

What makes you think it becomes immediately unstable the minute it meets an electron?

It doesn't become unstable when it meets an electron, it's already not a very happy chappy. The very fact that it's a charged particle makes it relatively unstable in that any charged particle is looking to become neutral. Hence it will react to take on an electron as soon as the chance arises. If the rest of the gas mix is comprised of atoms and molecules, there is nothing therein for this hydronium ion to react with. That is why I suggest that the first chance it will get to take on an electron would be when it comes into contact with a metal. This will give rise to the electrical properties that Eckman claims, though rather than being due to a -ve ion with surplus electrons as he claims, the opposite is actually true - it's due to a +ve ion with a deficit of electrons.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

Of course, the other point to make is that if it is simply hydronium, then this should be present in the gases resulting from any old common-duct electrolyser, pulsed or not.

Quote

Yes, and it does..in roughly 15% ratio. The question becomes now that we know what we are trying to achieve how we can go about doing it!

How indeed.

I guess there are two ways of looking at it:

1. We simply produce more of the overall gas mix, because though the percentage of hydronium may remain the same, obviously there will be more of it.

2. We can focus more intently on finding a way of upping the percentage of hydronium in the overall gas mix.

Or I suppose a combination of the two would also be quite acceptable.

I'll reread Eckman's paper and come back to you with the errors I picked up on later.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 09:24 AM

It doesn't become unstable when it meets an electron, it's already not a very happy chappy. The very fact that it's a charged particle makes it relatively unstable in that any charged particle is looking to become neutral. Hence it will react to take on an electron as soon as the chance arises. If the rest of the gas mix is comprised of atoms and molecules, there is nothing therein for this hydronium ion to react with. That is why I suggest that the first chance it will get to take on an electron would be when it comes into contact with a metal. This will give rise to the electrical properties that Eckman claims, though rather than being due to a -ve ion with surplus electrons as he claims, the opposite is actually true - it's due to a +ve ion with a deficit of electrons.

I agree that the charges will always try to become neutral and it certainly is a factor to consider. The fact that physical experiments ALMOST show the opposite is quite counter intuitive and leads me to believe that there must be more to it and perhaps the fact that we are now looking at a substance which science tells us can contain as many as 20 Hydronium ions possibly contained in a Dodecahedral cage makes this conceivable. But certainly anything to keep it stable is always helpful.

Also thank you so much for pointing out the electrical properties..it really is starting to make sense and there is no way Eckman could have know the difference without first knowing that the charges did in fact come from a Hydronium ion. Of course the electricity came from a deficit of electrons and not the other way around....well picked up!

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

How indeed.

I guess there are two ways of looking at it:

1. We simply produce more of the overall gas mix, because though the percentage of hydronium may remain the same, obviously there will be more of it.

Yup and I guess this is the approach most people seem to take the more HHO the better. Someone comes out and says they have a 100 lpm electrolysis device we would all be jumping. The thing with this is that it will only lead so far..there is only so much HHO one can make with a car's electronics and it's all downhill from there in an equation that will never favor our f*** the gas station endevour.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 03:04 AM

2. We can focus more intently on finding a way of upping the percentage of hydronium in the overall gas mix.

I think this is by far the best approach. I think upping the percentage is the most promising and viable alternative. I also think if we are to increase the presence of Hydronium ions we need to increase the presence of H3O2 in water. In other words we need to make exclusion zone water and we need to somehow increase or build the lattice structure until the water becomes saturated.

But how....

Quote from zaneaussie on September 28th, 2013, 09:48 AM

I think this is by far the best approach. I think upping the percentage is the most promising and viable alternative. I also think if we are to increase the presence of Hydronium ions we need to increase the presence of H3O2 in water. In other words we need to make exclusion zone water and we need to somehow increase or build the lattice structure until the water becomes saturated.

But how....

H is 1+ , O is 2- so H3O2 is H3O2-      So out of 2H20 there has a H+ left the building.

So if one does hydrolysis, then separate the H2 gas that is produced at the Cathode.
The watersolution in total will get more H3O2-  ions.

Regarding Christopher Eckman's paper, 'Plasma Orbital Expansion of the Electrons in Water'.

Here are some of the errors I picked up on, which gives rise to my suspicions that he may not be quite as informed as he makes out:

1.  Eckman states: 'This new ‘electric steam’ is a form of plasma where only the electrons would be excited, and the water molecules would be much cooler'

This makes no real sense at all. Electrons don't get excited as such in this manner. An atom or a molecule may take on energy where by an electron moves to a higher energy level, and then you may talk about the said atom or molecule being in an excited state.  As for the water molecules being much cooler, well this makes even less sense, you don't get hot and cold water molecules! You might get more or less energetic water molecules, for example, water vapour is more energetic than liquid water, but it is not hotter as such.

2.  Eckman states: 'The third peak is the one that was deemed unidentified by the test, but it is proposed that this is the linear water isotope, because it contains the weight of water with a few extra electrons.'

As I have stated before, an isotope is an atom or molecule with more or less neutrons. As we all know an atom with more or less electrons is an ion - or 'plasma' when in gaseous state. An extra electron, being of such negligible mass, would be like a pimple on an elephants arse and simply would not produce the mass indicated by the unidentified peak. Furthermore, as Eckman's whole paper is based on this unidentified peak being a funny-shaped water molecule with an extra electron, if this is not the case, then his whole theory has no foundation whatsoever.

3.  Eckman states: 'Normally monatomic hydrogen and oxygen would bond right away to form H2 and O2, but it does not in Brown’s Gas, they remain ions.'

They remain ions? Atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen are atoms, not ions.

4.  Eckman states:  Normal water molecules exist in a bent shape, if this water molecule were to gain electrons it would normally break down into hydrogen and oxygen, hence electrolysis of water.

Probably the biggest, most obvious blunder. This is not electrolysis as we know it and put simply, it is not how electrolysis works. Faraday would be turning in his grave. If what Eckman states here was correct then we would end up with an atom and an ion. This is just plain wrong, the water molecule does not take on an electron, it ionises.  

Some people might see this as nit-picking, but details are important, and the most important detail to get right is surely the science.

That's why for me, the most beneficial thing to come from Eckman's paper is the Mass spectrometer results.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 28th, 2013, 10:38 AM

That's why for me, the most beneficial thing to come from Eckman's paper is the Mass spectrometer results.

Ok, granted there are some misrepresentations but I think at least for now it has become obvious why Eckman made those errors in the mistake that he was dealing with an organized form of Rydberg matter, he just didn't know that he was looking at Hydronium ions. Probably also the reason he stated that the electric charge was due to negative ions and not positive.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 10:11 AM

H is 1+ , O is 2- so H3O2 is H3O2-      So out of 2H20 there has a H+ left the building.
So if one does hydrolysis, then separate the H2 gas that is produced at the Cathode.
The watersolution in total will get more H3O2-  ions.

There has to be better ways of making these lattices. Nature makes them in abundance every day in the form of clouds and now that we know about exclusion zone water and what it does when it evaporates things that science has been unable to completely explain like lightning for example now become quite clear. Pollack describes the process as a Like-like-like mechanism. Is there not a neat little laboratory way of inducing this mechanism?

Part 2 of EZ water

/watch?v=hqHWueBp23c

Also just quickly touching on another point...The 100% water motorcycle that Steve Ryan invented which used only water and nothing else. If you guys recall he used the water after some type of conditioning and it was never itself electrolyzed. When looking at the device that the film crew managed to capture it just shows a small box essentially. When asked how the device worked Ryan stated it's all about hydrogen entrainment...that statement has been going through my head ever since.

Is it possible that this simple little device somehow built exclusion zone water and that when allowed to sit for 40 minutes which he states is the time it takes, that this device built up a lattice structure??? If so can you guys think of a way this could have been achieved???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJQKg9CRJc&feature=related

Does this also prove that water without the need for splitting it into it's components is able to be used as a fuel?

Steve Ryan's Hydrogen entrainment device

 

Using the EZone...

As i understand it, the layer is quite thin. Its not like you can come around and scrape them of and put them in your bag...

If i think why there is an EZone, i think its there because of a static (electric) field.

To me that makes the most sense, otherwise what new force do we have to invent that rearranges the molecules/atoms near its surface?

We can also think of the two forces between fluid and solids and the one on fluids alone. What was it, cohesive and adhesive?

With EZone, the solid forces its or a structure onto the nearby water, or the image of that structure in energy. Would dead tissue still make EZones?

Why does light grow the influence of the EZone?

If we take salt water and freeze it, we get ice cubes with less salt. The freezing does sort of a same alignment where stuff is forced out of the EZ layer.

Like with forming crystals in the earth, more of the same material finds itself and excludes other stuff because that won't fit into the build structure.

Or like how sound wave patterns rearrange the kernels on a plate.

On those levels these forces have a lot of influence it seems.

----------------------------

To prematurely jump onto conclusions.... We should try to use.... statics, light and sound to grow an EZone.

Maybe if we use a polymere layer, a balloon, and keep it plus static in the water...

what do we place near the rim there to harvest H3O2-?

it was good that you brought up this point on hydronium.

i actually discovered it a couple of months ago, when i was looking at the big bang.

so now you can say the big bang was impossible, because it must have been the big implosion.

they say water is an incompressible fluid, does that still remain true?

Quote from zaneaussie on September 28th, 2013, 07:02 PM

Is it possible that this simple little device somehow built exclusion zone water and that when allowed to sit for 40 minutes which he states is the time it takes, that this device built up a lattice structure??? If so can you guys think of a way this could have been achieved???
Does this also prove that water without the need for splitting it into it's components is able to be used as a fuel?

Until it's proven otherwise = Sure, I think it's fully possible.
How?
That's up for mr. Ryan to decide if he's willing and able to show us.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 07:40 PM

Using the EZone...
As i understand it, the layer is quite thin. Its not like you can come around and scrape them of and put them in your bag...

Very true the EZone is extremely small measuring in the micron thickness. However something very very interesting happens when water freezes. The protons rush in behind the EZone and starts to grow a lattice structure. The lattice structure continues to grow until the water has frozen completely. I think Steve Ryan has proved almost beyond any doubt that somehow these lattices can be grown to almost complete saturation but without freezing the liquid. I think he somehow managed to move the EZone and may "trick" the water into thinking it was freezing when it wasn't..I don't really know but would love to hear some thoughts on this...

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 07:40 PM

If i think why there is an EZone, i think its there because of a static (electric) field.

Yes I agree and Moray King speaks of these static fields that "charge" water etc

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 07:40 PM

Why does light grow the influence of the EZone?

Great question. Pollack speaks of very specific wavelengths, UV region of 270 nanometers, just shy of the visible range, I suspect it has to do with resonating frequencies...

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 07:40 PM

If we take salt water and freeze it, we get ice cubes with less salt. The freezing does sort of a same alignment where stuff is forced out of the EZ layer.

Agreed.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 28th, 2013, 07:40 PM

To prematurely jump onto conclusions.... We should try to use.... statics, light and sound to grow an EZone.
Maybe if we use a polymere layer, a balloon, and keep it plus static in the water...

what do we place near the rim there to harvest H3O2-?

Yeah that's a great place to start and I for one will run some experiments to see where this might lead. I am picking up some hose fittings and what not tomorrow and hope to have a youtube video showing whatever progress I can make.

Harvesting is not a bad idea if that could indeed be done, the way I see it it either has to be harvested from the micron thick EZone or the zone itself has to be grown in ice style fashion without the freezing. If you had a USB microscope you could possibly harvest it just using a piece of nafion and a regular syringe....would def be an experiment worth performing and very interesting to say the least when you subjected this to either a naked flame or electrolysed it...would love to see it!!!

Quote from freethisone on September 28th, 2013, 09:30 PM

it was good that you brought up this point on hydronium.

Yeah I think it was a lucky conclusion that was reached purely as a result of us all here sharing information. It's amazing what can actually take place when a group of people put their minds together.

Quote from freethisone on September 28th, 2013, 09:30 PM

so now you can say the big bang was impossible, because it must have been the big implosion.

I don't really know lol Usually when you have in implosion it's immediatly followed by an explosion. Perhaps this is god's way of re-creating the world. But this is probably an entirely different discussion lol

Quote from freethisone on September 28th, 2013, 09:30 PM

they say water is an incompressible fluid, does that still remain true? 

Well also a good question..if you separate the EZone water is it still able to form and exlusion zone and repel pressure. I would have to say yes as this is immediatly apparent in ice.

Quote from Lynx on September 29th, 2013, 02:55 AM

That's up for mr. Ryan to decide if he's willing and able to show us.

Yeah it's a real shame that there is so little technical information available from his invention. I think the possibility exists that the whole reason he kept so quiet about it's working would have been because revealing even a small amount of information might have given the whole thing away. It could be so so simple for all we know.

I seriously don't think Mr Ryan is going to give away anything at all or he would have done so already. We have to remember that his life or the life of his family may very well have been threatened.

Once again it falls on us as a team to continue our tireless efforts until one day we reap the rewards....