https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRPbMcoULFkGuys,

Check out the progress of these guys creating a Plasma in water (with an electrolyte admittedly) to create HHO.  High voltage and low amperage.

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

Watch at 9 minutes in - CRAZY reaction going on.  Given they are trying to avoid boiling etc and do it scientifically - I am really liking their efforts.

Really brings to mind the thought of Stan saying he was inspired by "Explosions in Water".

They keep playing with the variac to control the reaction, maybe this is where the PLL would come in handy in this system.

Awesome, thanks for sharing

Good find symanuk.:D

So the fact these are LENR guys I think from quantumheat.org, and they have a gamma detector nearby, are we to assume there may be a link between creating a plasma underwater and cold fusion?  Didn't Stan Meyers say something about his process not being chemical but instead nuclear?  Any chance there is a very slight quantity of helium being given off by that reaction?  Or possibly fluorine if it is transmutation?

Sure interesting stuff.  Hopefully it will lead to some breakthroughs.

Quote from Dog-One on December 23rd, 2012, 03:20 PM

So the fact these are LENR guys I think from quantumheat.org, and they have a gamma detector nearby, are we to assume there may be a link between creating a plasma underwater and cold fusion?  Didn't Stan Meyers say something about his process not being chemical but instead nuclear?  Any chance there is a very slight quantity of helium being given off by that reaction?  Or possibly fluorine if it is transmutation?

Sure interesting stuff.  Hopefully it will lead to some breakthroughs.

I think so dog-one. I have invited them to join us at this forum.:D

Quote from Dog-One on December 23rd, 2012, 03:20 PM

So the fact these are LENR guys I think from quantumheat.org, and they have a gamma detector nearby, are we to assume there may be a link between creating a plasma underwater and cold fusion?  Didn't Stan Meyers say something about his process not being chemical but instead nuclear?  Any chance there is a very slight quantity of helium being given off by that reaction?  Or possibly fluorine if it is transmutation?

Sure interesting stuff.  Hopefully it will lead to some breakthroughs.

Yes, Helium and/or other bundles of quarks, however, they would be difficult to detect because, they will be produced in miniscule quantity.  The conversion of mass to energy gives orders of magnitude more energy than chemical conversion of bonds (ie., oxidation of hydrocarbons to CO2 and water, plus light and heat).  The easiest confirmation will be to measure power output, which they mention.  It is very well understood how much energy is required to turn water into steam.  They will measure the mass of water before the plasma discharge, and then after exposure to the plasma discharge.  The loss of weight will primarily be due to vaporization of the water as steam (not conversion of hydrogen to helium and other elements).  The energy to boil the water can be compared to the electrical input energy needed to cause the plasmic discharge.  They claim a similar apparatus gave 100% OU; specifically, they claimed 200 watts of output, for 100 watts of input.  

I will continue to read through their data.

Quote from Frank Grimes on December 24th, 2012, 12:58 PM

Quote from Dog-One on December 23rd, 2012, 03:20 PM

So the fact these are LENR guys I think from quantumheat.org, and they have a gamma detector nearby, are we to assume there may be a link between creating a plasma underwater and cold fusion?  Didn't Stan Meyers say something about his process not being chemical but instead nuclear?  Any chance there is a very slight quantity of helium being given off by that reaction?  Or possibly fluorine if it is transmutation?

Sure interesting stuff.  Hopefully it will lead to some breakthroughs.

Yes, Helium and/or other bundles of quarks, however, they would be difficult to detect because, they will be produced in miniscule quantity.  The conversion of mass to energy gives orders of magnitude more energy than chemical conversion of bonds (ie., oxidation of hydrocarbons to CO2 and water, plus light and heat).  The easiest confirmation will be to measure power output, which they mention.  It is very well understood how much energy is required to turn water into steam.  They will measure the mass of water before the plasma discharge, and then after exposure to the plasma discharge.  The loss of weight will primarily be due to vaporization of the water as steam (not conversion of hydrogen to helium and other elements).  The energy to boil the water can be compared to the electrical input energy needed to cause the plasmic discharge.  They claim a similar apparatus gave 100% OU; specifically, they claimed 200 watts of output, for 100 watts of input.  

I will continue to read through their data.

Wow, I hope there claims pan out, that would be awesome.:D

Quote from Frank Grimes on December 24th, 2012, 12:58 PM

Yes, Helium and/or other bundles of quarks, however, they would be difficult to detect because, they will be produced in miniscule quantity.  The conversion of mass to energy gives orders of magnitude more energy than chemical conversion of bonds (ie., oxidation of hydrocarbons to CO2 and water, plus light and heat).  The easiest confirmation will be to measure power output, which they mention.  It is very well understood how much energy is required to turn water into steam.  They will measure the mass of water before the plasma discharge, and then after exposure to the plasma discharge.  The loss of weight will primarily be due to vaporization of the water as steam (not conversion of hydrogen to helium and other elements).  The energy to boil the water can be compared to the electrical input energy needed to cause the plasmic discharge.  They claim a similar apparatus gave 100% OU; specifically, they claimed 200 watts of output, for 100 watts of input.  

I will continue to read through their data.

From my experimenting with HHO, their experiment appears somewhat wasteful.  When you create a plasma from HHO you get something far more interesting than typical gasoline combustion.  HHO expands rapidly as proven by the Popper and various other experiments.  After complete expansion comes the truly interesting part:  The plasma immediately collapses to a volume as small as it was when initially started.  Which means from a mechanical standpoint, you can collect the kinetic energy from the expansion and then collect some more kinetic energy from the collapse.  So in a Popper engine or modified ICE, you can double the work being performed for every single ignition.  This alone should account for potential overunity in an engine.  You pay for the production of HHO with electrolysis once, but get back not only the initial "Pop" in the form of mechanical work, you also get an additional "Thump" as the plasma dissolves back to steady state.

I'm currently working on an engine/genset now and as all the parts come in I should have something to show. I'll have more specific details then.  Due to the timing being so far past TDC, I cannot use a waste spark which is common for most engines.  I have come up with a gear drive mechanism that should work, provided I can get one of these guys here to fire-up their 3D printer for me.  hint, hint.

Quote from Dog-One on December 24th, 2012, 04:35 PM

Quote from Frank Grimes on December 24th, 2012, 12:58 PM

Yes, Helium and/or other bundles of quarks, however, they would be difficult to detect because, they will be produced in miniscule quantity.  The conversion of mass to energy gives orders of magnitude more energy than chemical conversion of bonds (ie., oxidation of hydrocarbons to CO2 and water, plus light and heat).  The easiest confirmation will be to measure power output, which they mention.  It is very well understood how much energy is required to turn water into steam.  They will measure the mass of water before the plasma discharge, and then after exposure to the plasma discharge.  The loss of weight will primarily be due to vaporization of the water as steam (not conversion of hydrogen to helium and other elements).  The energy to boil the water can be compared to the electrical input energy needed to cause the plasmic discharge.  They claim a similar apparatus gave 100% OU; specifically, they claimed 200 watts of output, for 100 watts of input.  

I will continue to read through their data.

From my experimenting with HHO, their experiment appears somewhat wasteful.  When you create a plasma from HHO you get something far more interesting than typical gasoline combustion.  HHO expands rapidly as proven by the Popper and various other experiments.  After complete expansion comes the truly interesting part:  The plasma immediately collapses to a volume as small as it was when initially started.  Which means from a mechanical standpoint, you can collect the kinetic energy from the expansion and then collect some more kinetic energy from the collapse.  So in a Popper engine or modified ICE, you can double the work being performed for every single ignition.  This alone should account for potential overunity in an engine.  You pay for the production of HHO with electrolysis once, but get back not only the initial "Pop" in the form of mechanical work, you also get an additional "Thump" as the plasma dissolves back to steady state.

I'm currently working on an engine/genset now and as all the parts come in I should have something to show. I'll have more specific details then.  Due to the timing being so far past TDC, I cannot use a waste spark which is common for most engines.  I have come up with a gear drive mechanism that should work, provided I can get one of these guys here to fire-up their 3D printer for me.  hint, hint.

Shot it to me Dog-one, i'm very interested and willing to help.:cool::D:P

Quote

From my experimenting with HHO, their experiment appears somewhat wasteful.  When you create a plasma from HHO you get something far more interesting than typical gasoline combustion.  HHO expands rapidly as proven by the Popper and various other experiments.  After complete expansion comes the truly interesting part:  The plasma immediately collapses to a volume as small as it was when initially started.  Which means from a mechanical standpoint, you can collect the kinetic energy from the expansion and then collect some more kinetic energy from the collapse.  So in a Popper engine or modified ICE, you can double the work being performed for every single ignition.  This alone should account for potential overunity in an engine.  You pay for the production of HHO with electrolysis once, but get back not only the initial "Pop" in the form of mechanical work, you also get an additional "Thump" as the plasma dissolves back to steady state.

I'm currently working on an engine/genset now and as all the parts come in I should have something to show. I'll have more specific details then.  Due to the timing being so far past TDC, I cannot use a waste spark which is common for most engines.  I have come up with a gear drive mechanism that should work, provided I can get one of these guys here to fire-up their 3D printer for me.  hint, hint.

Hmm, I'm not familiar with an HHO "popper", as of yet; unless you are assuming the Stan Meyers engine is a "popper".  The popper tech I'm familiar with is the one Russ has been working on, mostly with noble gases and hydrogen.
Also, there is no evidence, as of yet, that anything OU has occurred.  That will require input and output measurements.  Currently, his results appear to be that of an adiabatic process, whereby a cooling of the gas during the expansion phase results in decreasing pressure, ultimately resolving in a compression back to the rest state volume and temperature (with a little excess temperature rise in the system over time, due to frictional forces).  Until the amount of work being done is measured vs. the input energy, that is my hypothesis.  This will not be true, if there is in fact any type of nuclear (OU) process at play.
I sincerely look forward to seeing your engine design progress.
PS Merry Christmas!

Here is the link to the popper Frank
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=659

Quote from Jeff Nading on December 24th, 2012, 06:22 PM

Here is the link to the popper Frank
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=659

yes, I've seen this.  It doesn't involve HHO, correct?  It utilizes noble gases and hydrogen.

Quote from Frank Grimes on December 24th, 2012, 06:25 PM

Quote from Jeff Nading on December 24th, 2012, 06:22 PM

Here is the link to the popper Frank
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=659

yes, I've seen this.  It doesn't involve HHO, correct?  It utilizes noble gases and hydrogen.

Yes, noble gas and hydrogen. Some of the concepts could have similarities though.:D

Quote from Dog-One on December 25th, 2012, 01:42 AM

Quote from Jeff Nading on December 24th, 2012, 05:38 PM

Shot it to me Dog-one, i'm very interested and willing to help.:cool::D:P

Couldn't attach any files via PM, so here you are.  If you can't pull them in, let me know and I'll try some other format.

how about a vortex based solution. Indeed some may want it too be a secret or perhaps i may be the first to think of this idea. i gladly am aware, what i would like to share.

if i only had a way to show you.

a quick and easy way to do this. spar parts. 50 50 split to any one who is the first to engineer my design. perhaps i offer a prize? and every one could test the concepts and show results.

set up could be together in 10 minutes from spare parts. Vortex based. many are already experimenting with these coils.

Hi folks,

maybe this is helpfull.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatib.pdf

It descripes dramatical H2 Output during the experiment.

Maybe Stanley Meyer named this state "Resonance". The Amperage is going down during the dramatical H2 Output. Look at the diagramms.

So maybe he uses ss tubes instead of tungsten to avoid material removal (erosion). He highlighted this in the patents. Maybe this was very important.

A year ago I tried this at home with two ss tubes and it worked. (attachment).
But using two tubes, there are no sparks like in the video, but the effect takes place. Still a lot of power cosumption, but the process was not at its optimum.

The disadvantage is that it also produces a lot of steam. But this could be used with the injectors.

To bias the coils\s them self.
ac dc biased.
3 wire vortex cores are needed.
plus one or two additional ferrite inductors if needed.

Quote from Amsy on December 27th, 2012, 06:07 AM

Hi folks,

maybe this is helpfull.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatib.pdf

It descripes dramatical H2 Output during the experiment.

Maybe Stanley Meyer named this state "Resonance". The Amperage is going down during the dramatical H2 Output. Look at the diagramms.

So maybe he uses ss tubes instead of tungsten to avoid material removal (erosion). He highlighted this in the patents. Maybe this was very important.

A year ago I tried this at home with two ss tubes and it worked. (attachment).
But using two tubes, there are no sparks like in the video, but the effect takes place. Still a lot of power cosumption, but the process was not at its optimum.

The disadvantage is that it also produces a lot of steam. But this could be used with the injectors.

The paper makes a lot of claims about "expected" H2 production, based upon Faraday's laws, but none of their calculations are included.

Quote from Frank Grimes on January 5th, 2013, 04:04 PM

Quote from Amsy on December 27th, 2012, 06:07 AM

Hi folks,

maybe this is helpfull.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatib.pdf

It descripes dramatical H2 Output during the experiment.

Maybe Stanley Meyer named this state "Resonance". The Amperage is going down during the dramatical H2 Output. Look at the diagramms.

So maybe he uses ss tubes instead of tungsten to avoid material removal (erosion). He highlighted this in the patents. Maybe this was very important.

A year ago I tried this at home with two ss tubes and it worked. (attachment).
But using two tubes, there are no sparks like in the video, but the effect takes place. Still a lot of power cosumption, but the process was not at its optimum.

The disadvantage is that it also produces a lot of steam. But this could be used with the injectors.

The paper makes a lot of claims about "expected" H2 production, based upon Faraday's laws, but none of their calculations are included.

This is one of the videos made by Renzo Mondaini.  It is very interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEceEHgaXoU
Dave

Quote from dlpatte on January 6th, 2013, 06:18 AM

Quote from Frank Grimes on January 5th, 2013, 04:04 PM

Quote from Amsy on December 27th, 2012, 06:07 AM

Hi folks,

maybe this is helpfull.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatib.pdf

It descripes dramatical H2 Output during the experiment.

Maybe Stanley Meyer named this state "Resonance". The Amperage is going down during the dramatical H2 Output. Look at the diagramms.

So maybe he uses ss tubes instead of tungsten to avoid material removal (erosion). He highlighted this in the patents. Maybe this was very important.

A year ago I tried this at home with two ss tubes and it worked. (attachment).
But using two tubes, there are no sparks like in the video, but the effect takes place. Still a lot of power cosumption, but the process was not at its optimum.

The disadvantage is that it also produces a lot of steam. But this could be used with the injectors.

The paper makes a lot of claims about "expected" H2 production, based upon Faraday's laws, but none of their calculations are included.

This is one of the videos made by Renzo Mondaini.  It is very interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEceEHgaXoU
Dave

This is another general video that is very interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8jR2N6TP_0
Dave