None Electrolytic Splitting Of H2o

[Slovenia]

Thanks

Thanks for sharing this Jetijs.

This looks relevant, by Joseph Cater:

[lamare]

Farrah – I’d love to be able to!! But alas it’s a thing that officially “never happened” a case of “fraud” and it’s an impossible heresy as far as official science and chemistry is concerned... I believe Mayer did exactly what he said he did, and I’ve got little doubt Puharich got the job done before him. What about you?
Did they both know the chemical “nuts and bolts”? I don’t know they were certainly both very clever men and no doubt had formed their own conclusions.
But In the strict scientific sense where mathematical proof is all, perhaps not!

You asked Farrah, but if ye asked me, I'd say I know Meyer, Puharich and Gray all did what the say they did, because I checked it out and am at a point I can just about put the mathematical proof behind it. However, as far as I can tell, none of them knew about the real working principle behind their systems. They were tapping their energy from the electric field and nowhere else, IMHO. And that is the opinion of someone holding a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering, for what that is worth these days.

[Farrah Day]

You asked Farrah, but if ye asked me, I'd say I know Meyer, Puharich and Gray all did what the say they did, because I checked it out and am at a point I can just about put the mathematical proof behind it. However, as far as I can tell, none of them knew about the real working principle behind their systems. They were tapping their energy from the electric field and nowhere else, IMHO. And that is the opinion of someone holding a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering, for what that is worth these days.

Lamare I'm sure your degree holds you in good stead within it's given field, but where the dissociation of water is concerned, we clearly don't see eye to eye as we've already established. It would be handy if you had a degree in chemistry, because it's the chemistry here that is clearly the major stumbling block.

Meyer's depictions of what is happening at molecular level is at extreme odds to Puharich's depictions, then there's Geoge Wiseman's expanded water theory, so I guess at least we agree on one thing, that is if all the claims are true, most people did not know what reactions are taking place and hence were likely talking nonsense. And this is not to discredit anyone, just simply a statement of logic.

[lamare]

Lamare I'm sure your degree holds you in good stead within it's given field, but where the dissociation of water is concerned, we clearly don't see eye to eye as we've already established. It would be handy if you had a degree in chemistry, because it's the chemistry here that is clearly the major stumbling block.

IHMO, chemistry has nothing to do with what Gray, Meyer and Puharich really did out of the ordinary. They extracted electrical energy out of the electric field using the same principles as Grey used to power his electric motor. The only difference between Gray and the other two is that they used the power to split water using the chemical reactions that have been known ever since Faraday. These are reactions that involve the movement of charges between two half reactions, which are normally performed using electrodes, but as far as I can tell, these can also be performed "in fluid" using ions as charge carriers under the condition that the required amount of energy to perform this reaction is applied in an appropriate manner in the shape of electromagnetic energy. And that can be either a current, an electric field and apparantly also an HF electromagnetic field as Mike is telling us.

In other words: IMHO it is all about how to get the (electric) power applied to the reaction, the reaction itself is the plain old reaction known as Faraday electrolysis.

To make this absolutely clear: I did not mean to say I know that the theories of either one of these inventors were correct. I meant to say that I know that their observations regarding being able to extract excess energy out of the vacuum were correct.

One more thing: Electrical Engineers do get quite a bit of Physics and Chemistry in their curriculum. For example, you have to understand the physics of semiconductors and the production of integrated circuits does involve quite a bit of chemistry and physics too. So, EE are not experts all the way on Chemistry, but they do have a good basic understanding of Chemistry.

[Duncan]

and now.... the post cant move

[Aaron]

120MHz crystal oscillator

If we get back on topic:



The diagram Mike shows shows a single crystal oscillator.

Can we just start out with a 120MHz crystal oscillator to start with instead
of having to to run a 20MHz one through a doubler than tripler?

The diagram is from 1989 so maybe 120MHz ones weren't available then
but doing a short search, it seems there are 120MHz crystals available.

Is there any reason we can't start with a 120MHz one?

[SeaMonkey]

If we get back on topic:

Can we just start out with a 120MHz crystal oscillator to start with instead
of having to to run a 20MHz one through a doubler than tripler?

The diagram is from 1989 so maybe 120MHz ones weren't available then
but doing a short search, it seems there are 120MHz crystals available.

Is there any reason we can't start with a 120MHz one?

There are physical limits to the frequency of oscillation
of the quartz crystal. In order to obtain the best possible
accuracy and stability frequency multipliers are a
necessity.

This Wiki article is quite comprehensive.

[Aaron]

crystal oscillator accuracy

Thanks SeaMonkey.

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

Now the 120MHz and 720MHz frequencies seem to be the two
input frequencies that may do the trick and from what Mike
indicates in his posts other input/companion frequencies can work too.

The 120 and 720 seem to just be a result of starting with a 20MHz
exact crystal.

There are definitely 120MHz crystals available and seem to be towards
the upper end of the easily available and lower cost ones.

Q1) If the 120MHz has more deviation from a lower one like a 20MHZ, lets
say a couple thousand cycles per second for example
and I've seen those +/- tolerances referenced for them, wouldn't the
secondary frequency still be proportionate to it's own doubling and tripling
compared to the 120MHz frequency?

Q2) And therefore, the other 2 frequencies (difference of and sum of) would
also still automatically be in the right proportion no matter what the
input crystal is?

Q3) So basically, if the 120MHz crystal deviates, the secondary frequency
through doubling and tripling and the other 2 "heterodyned" frequencies
would all still follow proportionately to the instability of the 120MHz crystal,
would they?

Q4) If so, then it seems it wouldn't matter the stability of a 120MHz crystal
and we could cut out one entire doubling circuit and one entire tripling
circuit and just start with 120MHz.

At least for now, I don't see a downfall of that because I'm pretty sure
the water molecules have no appreciation for "round numbers" as nature
doesn't work on them so they should split according to Mike's diagram
even if the 120MHz crystal does have more deviation than a 20MHz
crystal.

IF, there is a benefit to having more stability such as some kind of
entrainment or something in the water bath or water mist cloud that
is more effective at a very, very specific stable frequency - 4 mixed
frequencies from the heterodyning - then I can see a benefit of using
a 20MHz with a doubler and tripler to get 120MHz.

I personally don't want to build any extra circuitry I don't have to
and am looking for any way that can simplify the entire circuit. Not in
concept, just in electronics and using a 120MHz crystal at the front
would eliminate a doubler and tripler on the input path.

Mike is an incredible engineer so I can see why he may want to just
make the circuit have a very specific or predictable frequency to work
with - it is good design protocol or whatever you want to call it.

But if a certain amount of deviation is permissible and won't effect
the results, then I'm all for the easier method.

I'd love to hear any feed back on the above concepts from anyone that
has direct hands on experience with crystal oscillators.

My only experience with crystals was when I was a teen playing with
remote control cars and had different crystals for different channels on
the remote control and the receiver in case someone I was racing had
the same frequency. But of course I didn't have to have any idea how
they worked to use them.

I have some questions about the oscillator circuits themselves but I'll
wait for details on the above. If it is crucial
to have a precision frequency on the crystal, then no big deal... just
go with the 20MHz and put it through a doubler and tripler. But I'd at
least like to know.

[Duncan]

I’m assuming that a basic oscillator circuit something perhaps after this style COLPITTS 1 To 20 MHz Crystal Oscillator is about the ticket, When this Xtal oscillates Its going to generate Its fundamental 20 MHz and of course the output is going to be rich in harmonics (overtones) one way or another in due course I assume we are going to filter out and use the 6th and the 36th overtone.
I assume Mike has used a 20 MHz Xtal for economy and because it’s a standard and readily available.
I also believe it’s a bad Idea to try and “load” an Xtal at Its fundamental frequency. It’s basically Impedance matching that I see as being a problem if you deviate from Mikes 20Mhz plan. You may have to “dampen” the oscillations when you first set up your oscillator after that you really don’t want the oscillator “to see” any variation (load) in its operating conditions. Just extract the 6th and 36th overtones from the hundreds at high impedance and amplify them.
As for the frequencies used Remember Mikes a Ham and he would be trying as far as possible to experiment On bands he’s allowed to use he was also aware that Stan caused TVI and so Knew UHF was probably part of the equation As for us we’d better have a good faraday cage all around it. .
.

[Slovenia]

Duncan's Link

Thanks for the link Duncan. It helps lot.

[nvisser]

uhf amplifier

Could this be the type of amplifier we are looking for. They say it could be easily modified to a wide band amp. I am not sure what the power output is. They only say 35dB gain. Input of 18v, 55mA is according to me about 1W.
As far as I can remember every 3dB gain is doubling of power. So this could well be much over a 10W amp.
And it does not look to expensive.
3 - Motorola UHF LNA RF Amplifier 400-1100 MHz 900MHz - eBay (item 360303698465 end time Sep-30-10 13:26:46 PDT)

uhf amplifier items - Get great deals on Electronics, Business Industrial items on eBay.com!

There are a large variety to choose from.
Any thoughts on this?

[nvisser]

Stupid idea?

It sounds like the more carrier frequencies we use the better.
Will it not be easier to receive TV signals from a uhf and a vhf aerial and just amplify that and zap them into the antennas in the WFC container?
Then they can heterodyne like hell.

[Cherryman]

It sounds like the more carrier frequencies we use the better.
Will it not be easier to receive TV signals from a uhf and a vhf aerial and just amplify that and zap them into the antennas in the WFC container?
Then they can heterodyne like hell.

now "Media Black-out" gets a whole new meaning

[DrStiffler]

UWB Exciters

@All

I don't want to change Mike's direction at all, but will throw out some additional info about obtaining the frequencies you want.

If you use doubler's, tripler's etc., you can design them so that they are for the most part immune fro non-desired input frequencies by using a combination of input filters (bandpass) and a high Q tank for the output stage. Therefore its a matter of good engineering and the art of RF to reject what might be present that you do not want.

What we do at my lab is use one of my exciters into a SGATE which gives a pretty level output across hundreds of megahertz.

*Side note for that 'PestWicked' fellow that made the remark that I could not substantiate UWB from my Exciters in the Diode Electrolysis Videos, LOOK CLOSELY.

Okay to explain what a SEC Exciter and SGATE can do, here are a few picture from an SA to show what not many of you have seen do to not having the needed equipment.

What I do is adjust the exciter for the spread I desire and bridge off the specific frequency I desire.

I would think this would be much easier than all the oscillator, doubler and triplers, just bandpass and amplify what you want, pic the candy from the selection so to speak.

[Aaron]

colpitts oscillator

I’m assuming that a basic oscillator circuit something perhaps after this style COLPITTS 1 To 20 MHz Crystal Oscillator is about the ticket,

I also believe it’s a bad Idea to try and “load” an Xtal at Its fundamental frequency. It’s basically Impedance matching that I see as being a problem if you deviate from Mikes 20Mhz plan. You may have to “dampen” the oscillations when you first set up your oscillator after that you really don’t want the oscillator “to see” any variation (load) in its operating conditions.

Nice! Last night I went through some crystal oscillator schematics and
THAT is the EXACT one I have sitting in another tab right now. Didn't
want to post about it until I had some feedback on my post. I'll take the
synchronicity as a good sign - and there are countless choices



Does anyone else see any reason why this simple circuit would not work
for the purposes in Mike's diagram?

Duncan, I see what you're saying about directly "loading" the source
crystal/frequency.

But still, my question is - does it even matter?

If the frequency changes by directly "loading" it, the secondary
frequency through the double and tripler will simply still be a double
then tripled frequency of the original and the difference of and sum
of those two frequencies will always still be an exact difference and
exact sum of those two frequencies. So, no matter how the 120MHz
crystal deviates, there is still 4 wave mixing happening.

Does it shorten the life of the crystal? If not, then damaging the crystal
this way isn't an issue.

The only issue I see if there is deviation in the frequency of a single
120MHz crystal is if there is an advantage to having a dead on source
frequency in the water where the antennas are. If breaking the 2x4
piece of wood by jiggling it at both ends with two frequencies will happen
just as effective with a crystal that deviates in frequency up and down
a bit, then a single 120MHz crystal will eliminate a double and tripler
on the input path to the amplifier and other double/tripler circuit.

I understand replicating systems means to do it EXACTLY. However,
if 120MHz crystal availability that long ago has anything to do with it,
then we can take out two blocks from the diagram. It really is only a
question that Mike can answer because he knows the reason he went
with a 20MHz one to start with. Hopefully, he will see this when he gets
back.