Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
Moderator Jason's picture
Moderator Jason
Status: Moderator (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2008
Posts: 98
Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Moved thread from Lowesville blog.

flavian's picture
flavian
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 20 2008
Posts: 29
Chris Martenson meet Bob Boyce

Chris Martenson - author of the best on-line description of our current economic problems, leader of a growing non-official group with an open-view regarding our economic future

Bob Boyce -  independent researcher into energy-related problems, leader of a bigger and older non-official group with an open view regarding our energetic future

For those that understand it, the movie below is pure gold: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1779100537035350538

Some would argue that it's even better that CM's Crash Course. Hard to imagine, but they just might be right. Not as a presentation, but as importance. For those that look at it and it's like chinese to them, please try to remember how some guys feel when they first watch Crash Course.

Time, Scale and Costs - energy is our biggest problem, if we could solve that, everything else would be solved and the 3E will merge together. If you have enough energy you solve the energy problem, the envinonment problem and the economy problem in the same time. You have the power to do all that you want.

HarryFlashman's picture
HarryFlashman
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 1 2008
Posts: 54
Re: The Lowesville Seminar

Flavian,

 

Not sure what your science background is but electrolysis is a net energy loser.I read the blurb for the movie but then binned it because of the electrolysis stuff.

If you have some information that contradicts my understanding of the physics of this problem,then Im happy to listen to your thoughts and opinions.At the moment its breaking one of the laws of thermodynamics(cant remember which).

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: The Lowesville Seminar

Harry -

Good call.  It would appear that Faraday's First and Second Laws have been stepped on a little too liberally here.  Even discounting the energy required to produce the electricity, the best you can expect is about 70%-80% efficiency for a water to hydrogen process.  It's a little higher if you account for the energy absorbed by the oxygen too.

I believe there are some special cases (not this one) of electrolysis that are very near zero energ consumers or small net energy producers (theoretical).  Steam electrolysis absorbs heat and the hydrogen produced yields higher energy values than the electrical input.  Again, I suspect that the energy required to produce the electricity, plus the energy required to achieve the high temps of the steam, hydrogen and oxygen are discounted.  In any event, I doubt the interviewee had such a setup for his boats.  We used a similar type of electrolysis reaction on the submarines I served on in our oxygen generators (affectionately referred to as Bomb 1 and Bomb 2).  They were hight temp, high pressure electrolytic cells - we used deionized water - and we had to closely monitor temp/press levels as well as electrical current input.  Once we got them up to the required operating temps and pressures our efficiency curves were nearly linear in terms of O2 output rate vs. electrical input.  We bubbled the H2 overboard since hydrogen inside the people compartment is an undesirable condition.  Thinking back though, I'm certain we didn't account for the energy required to heat the water and generate the electricity - all produced by a nuclear reactor.  And we certainly didn't think twice about bubbling the heated hydrogen over the side, so there was lost energy there too.

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: The Lowesville Seminar

Hydrogen is a battery, not a fuel source.

Since there are no oceans or lakes or underground rivers of hydrogen, it must always be created at a loss of energy. There are no loss-less energy conversions that man can make.

The real issue is where do you get the energy in the first place to create this battery once oil is too expensive to use.

Flavian, you got som 'splanin to do! (said in a Cuban accent)

 

Cheers,

Rog

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2368
Re: Chris Patton and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Flavian,

Not to heap on you here, but I took issue with a different aspect of your post:

Quote:

Time, Scale and Costs - energy is our biggest problem, if we could solve that, everything else would be solved and the 3E will merge together. If you have enough energy you solve the energy problem, the envinonment problem and the economy problem in the same time. You have the power to do all that you want.

This, at best, is a shortsighted comment - as eventually we'll run into the same problem: too many humans competing for too few resources.

I'd venture to say that even if we had a fuel source that was capable of solving our energy woes, that the population is still and absolutely critical element that cannot be overlooked.

Energy is also too broad of a word, and should be broken down into it's potential uses:
- Locomotion
- Agriculture
- Power Production

...and possible others.

Just some thoughts,

Cheers!

Aaron

capesurvivor's picture
capesurvivor
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 12 2008
Posts: 963
Re: The Lowesville Seminar

My old physics lectures came zooming back to me, also.

It would be great if someone working in his basement could circumvent the laws of thermodynamics and energy transfer.

 

SG

flavian's picture
flavian
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 20 2008
Posts: 29
Re: Chris Patton and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

You look at yourself like open-minded guys. That are stunned about the level that manipulation, coverups and lies are constantly hiding the truth about global economy. You do not take for granted what other guys are teaching you in school about economy.

But on the other hand you presume that any breaktrough in science that would fundamentally change our world would not be covered and lied about ? Come on, think about it a little... ;)

Now, regarding hydrogen. Bob Boyce is a veteran in this field and has done a vast work in this area. Same like Stanley Meyer, Daniel Dingel and others. We are not talking "simple" elecrolysis. Yes, you can get to outstanding results, improved mileage on cars, less polution and many other benefits using just brute force electrolysis. But what Bob Boyce and members of his internet group are talking about is an entire different thing. Is an electro-chemical resonance phenomena. That goes beyond what all of us have learned in school.

That is why it resembles CM's way of talking about an entire different field. It's not "corrupted" economics here, is bad science teachings we are talking about. And once you see with your own eye a petrol engine with no modifications running 100% on water and electricity, you start to understand what the potential of all these could be.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Chris Patton and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

flavian -

As you will come to find out, I am a huge fan of Occam's Razor.  So I applied it to my assessment of the "electrochemical resonance phenomenon" and claim that some guy has figured out how to extract more energy from hydrogen produced during electrolysis than is put in as electrical current to conduct the hydrolysis.  Liberal assumptions about what to use to calculate all of the required energy sources to conduct the electrolysis aside (energy required to produce the electricity, heat loss/gain, etc.) I am inclined to believe that Farady's laws have to hold.

And by "electrochemical resonance" I assume you mean impedance spectroscopy?  Is Boyce claiming to have figured out a way to map a system's impedance over a range of frequencies to establish the most efficient energy storage and dissipation chartacteristics that he then runs through an electrolytic process to pull out the highest amount of energy with the smallest imput?  What about the energy required to generate such resonance?  I suspect this isn't in the denominator anywhere.

My options are:

1.  These guys have found a way to generate more output power from a reaction than they need to put in to conduct the electrolysis utilizing "electrochemical resonance" and their findings have been suppressed by the evil "them".  But somehow the definitive video proof exists on You Tube or google video?  This option assumes either Faraday's Laws have been circumvented or that they have employed gross assumptions in calculating all of thier input energy requirements to calculate their >1.0 efficiencies.  Or some combination of the two.

or

2.  They haven't figured out how to do what they claim.  None of Faraday's Laws violated in assuming this option.

I have to go with Option #2.

If you could provide any links or sources (credible or not) that talk about "electrochemical resonance" I would be interested in reading. 

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Chris Patton and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Flavian,

One question:

Do you or do you not believe in the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another?

This and other laws including those of thermodynamics, in my mind, are not some some of massive government cover-up to hide the hidden potential of Hydrogen as fuel. Simply put, you can't get something for nothing. Well, actually you can, but it isn't sustainable (see: economic crash of 2008).

I'm not going to get into a sparring contest with you over this, but the most you can EVER HOPE to achieve (but won't even come close in reality) is 100% conversion of electricity to hydrogen. I ask again, where does the electricity come from? Why not just use it as electricity in the first place?

Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source of it. You will not convince me otherwise unless you find some hydrogen buried in a field as big as the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia somewhere accessible to us humans. I'm open minded to you going and looking for said hydrogen field Wink

Rog

flavian's picture
flavian
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 20 2008
Posts: 29
Re: Chris Patton and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

First, I would like to ask for the title of this topic to be changed. Because the main ideea was Bob Boyce and once again, we are not talking electrolysis here.

Next, regarding Dogs_In_A_Pile options. When speaking about Farraday "laws" is like comparing Keynesian "laws" of economics and how good they work in practice. Assuming that you are familiar with austrian school and Peter Schiff's point of view about them... ;)

Do you or do you not believe in the law of conservation of energy which
states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be
converted from one form to another

Yes, this one I will agree with. But we are not talking about the electricity as the source of the energy that splits the water. You should research the term of Zero Point Energy. Not even latest discoveries are able to explain phenomens like Casimr efect and other. What do you think LHC is all about ? Not even Einstein's laws are perfect:

There are two other points of tension between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

  • First,
    classical general relativity breaks down at singularities, and quantum
    mechanics becomes inconsistent with general relativity in a
    neighborhood of singularities (however, no one is certain that
    classical general relativity applies near singularities in the first
    place).
  • Second, it is not clear how to determine the
    gravitational field of a particle, since under the Heisenberg
    uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics its location and velocity
    cannot be known with certainty. The resolution of these points may come
    from a better understanding of general relativity

Candidate theories
There
are a number of proposed quantum gravity theories. Currently, there is
still no complete and consistent quantum theory of gravity, and the
candidate models still need to overcome major formal and conceptual
problems. They also face the common problem that, as yet, there is no
way to put quantum gravity predictions to experimental tests, although
there is hope for this to change as future data from cosmological
observations and particle physics experiments becomes available.

I would recommend also reading some Haisch si Rueda materials also:

If they can get their
idea to work, Haisch and Rueda will have a theory of quantum gravity --
the long-sought marriage of Einstein's general relativity with quantum
mechanics. It would finally allow physicists to understand the first
moments after the big bang, and the crushing singularity at the core of
a black hole.

In 2005 Depp proposed a modification
to the original PV work of Dicke that addresses many of the objections
above. The revised model is not a replacement for general relativity
but is meant to provide insight into the possible underlying physics of
general relativity.

 

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Bob Boyce
flavian wrote:

Do you or do you not believe in the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another

Yes, this one I will agree with. But we are not talking about the electricity as the source of the energy that splits the water. You should research the term of Zero Point Energy. Not even latest discoveries are able to explain phenomens like Casimr efect and other. What do you think LHC is all about ? Not even Einstein's laws are perfect:

It's getting a little deep for me here. We can talk string theory, Chaos theory, hydrogen creating in a black hole at the speed of light, yada yada yada and it gets us no-where.

If this is viable - make it happen -prove me wrong. There has been much ado about desktop cold fusion several times in history, and always it has proven false. Because of this, I want to see it, not hear about it. Show me the money! Have it confirmed by a reputable source. Then I get excited. Until then it is just another 100MPG carburator that Exxon paid the inventor $1M to shut up about. You have to know - we've been here so many times before, were just a little tired of hearing about all the ways to get your money for nothing and your chicks for free.

I say that if you have a black box with an input energy of electicity and no other energy input but have electrical energy +1 output, the only other energy that can be available for release is the splitting or combining of atoms in the box. All theories aside, isn't that the bottom line?

I would also love to hear an answer to Aaron's question.

Rog

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Chris Patton and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Why would we care about explaining the Casimir effect?  It is a tiny amount of energy and it's non-renewable.

And what's the purpose of the redirect with the quantum mechanics cut and paste?  We were talking about electrolysis and the assertion that the guys in the video had figured out a way to liberate more energy during electrolysis than is input into the reaction.

Zero Point Energy is a neat buzzword, but since we would have to violate all laws of thermodynamics to drop below a minimum system energy level to then extract said infinite energy utilizing methods that do not exist at an energy cost that we can't predict we can let that one go too. 

Besides, there is no need to research Zero Point Energy - it exists in the brain function of our elected officials and their half-baked "Bailouts-R-Us" schemes.

flavian's picture
flavian
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 20 2008
Posts: 29
Re: Bob Boyce
Ready wrote:

I say that if you have a black box with an input energy of electicity and no other energy input but have electrical energy +1 output, the only other energy that can be available for release is the splitting or combining of atoms in the box. All theories aside, isn't that the bottom line?

I would also love to hear an answer to Aaron's question.

Yep, that's the bottom line. I've started my own experiments more than a year ago. I also joined Bob Boyces's group about half an year ago. Had some tests done last summer, obtained a petrol engine with no modifications running 100% on water and electricity only. Engine was from a generator, but I have not yet attained self-running like others have. Still some theaking to do in order to obtain resonance of hydrogen generator that I was testing last autumn. Hope to have time, money ang good weather to restart experiments this spring. But 100% convinced it is doable.

Casimir effect is just a small example where the "laws" of science show theyr weakness. The "laws" were changed several times during our history and I just showed in my previous post that not even Einstein's laws are perfect. And the research is still going on for the "mystery" particle that might explain Casimir effect, gravitational law errors, zero point energy and others. So far, the science only tried to explain the experiments. They usually created the "laws" to pretend they have an explanation for an already observed behavior. This means you cannot always predict outcome of new experiments with old laws... ;)

An answer to energy related problems would need a little imagination. If a small and cheap "black box" could produce free hydrogen from water, we could very easily adapt our already-existing fleet of petrol engines to run on hydrogen. The adaptation is quite easy, since most engines need no adaptation and other just some "software update" in order to work with hydrogen. This would take care of "scale" and "time" problem. It could be done in a few years for most of our carbon-based industry. If the black box consists in a few electronics and stainless steel plates with a plastic frame, that would cover the aspect of "costs". Basicly cheaper than a car battery.

If such a device would appear on the free market, not only the economy concept would be totally rendered obsolte, but our entire world and the way it works would have to change. Free energy means independence from the system. From the oil of the arabs. From the grid and from the heating bills. Less work for everybody. No more pollution. Inexpensive travels to anywhere. Acces to resouces deep underground or up in the space. Anything the mind can think of. Up to the point where we could materialize energy and transform it into matter. Yes, it is possible. It would require some energy. How much ?  E=mc2 :)

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Bob Boyce Meets Timothy Leary For the 2009 Acid Tests

Flavian -

Lots of ifs and mights and maybes don't you think?

And I have yet to find where you showed in a previous post that Einstein's laws aren't perfect.  Maybe we should call them "Einstein's pretty good guidelines that nobody has been able to disprove"?

But I did find these -

"When speaking about Farraday "laws" is like comparing Keynesian "laws" of economics and how good they work in practice." - Nope, it's not. When speaking about Faraday's Laws, it's like speaking about Faraday's Laws.

"Up to the point where we could materialize energy and transform it into matter.  Yes, it is possible."  - I can't wait for this one.  I think I had this conversation in the parking lot before a Grateful Dead concert once.

"But we are not talking about the electricity as the source of the energy that splits the water." - I'm not sure who else you have in the room to constitute your "we", but I am talking about electricity as the energy source for ELECTROLYSIS.

Please explain how you intend to violate the laws of thermodynamics to establish a lower energy state allowing you utilize Zero Point Energy.  Wait, if you have a new thermodynamic steady state energy level you now have a new, lower level of Zero Point Energy.  Or is this now Absolute Zero Point Energy?

I wish you luck in your endeavors, but unless Captain Jean-Luc Picard comes along and violates the Prime Directive I don't think you are going to have too much success.

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Chris Patton and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power
flavian wrote:

 

Next, regarding Dogs_In_A_Pile options. When speaking about Farraday "laws" is like comparing Keynesian "laws" of economics and how good they work in practice. Assuming that you are familiar with austrian school and Peter Schiff's point of view about them... ;)

 In science there are conservatively  only 18 fundamental laws

To "become" a law is tough task, one single provable exception and you are out.

 

 Keys only has an economic theory, ( and crackpot ones at that !!! )

 

Tread VERY creafully around any theory that postulates breaking a law ( of the scientific kind )

 

Cheers Hamish.

 

flavian's picture
flavian
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 20 2008
Posts: 29
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

"A science law is a science LAW and it cannot be violated". No boy, no way. We are talking science here. Where things that were pumped into our head in school as laws work better than the ones in bible. Contradicting science laws is heresy.

Stuff like Joules Verne was saying 100 years ago looked SF because there were science "laws" contradicting them. Stuff like atomic bombs were impossible, until Einstein came up with new "laws" explaining the new experiments. Airplanes were impossible. Tv sets were SF also. Need more examples ?

Come on, give me a break. At least economic "laws" worked ok until this last century mess. But science never changed so much like in the last 200 years. But some guys still like to think they know everything. And keep telling others what can or cannot be done.

So much about open-minded... :(

Well, I had to try. :)

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power
flavian wrote:

So much about open-minded... :(

Flavian,

Do not indict me as close minded simply because I disagree. The same logic could be used against you, since you are clearly not open minded about the laws you violate and lack of real success or proof, no?

There is so much stuff rolling around in cyberspace that needs to be filtered out as, well, a waste of time. You won't see me on the porn sites, though it does not make me close minded. You have gotten a response, even though you are unhappy about it, but at least you have not been relegated to useless dribble that did not merit a response.

It's good to challenge the status quo. I support your right to do so and applaud your efforts. You just happen to be on the wrong pony bud.

Good luck, as we have reached an impass, I'm out.

Best regards,

Rog

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power
flavian wrote:

Need more examples ?

Yes - in no particular order.

Specific, objective and measurable data that disproves Einstein's Laws, Newton's Laws, Faraday's Laws - anybody's laws.

Specific proof that you have figured out a way to exploit Zero Point Energy - other than some oddly arranged meandering statements cut and pasted from Wikipedia.

Specific proof that some boat racer in Florida has figured out how to get more energy out of water through electrolysis than what is input in the electrolytic process.  Even if it was break even you'd figure he'd have been able to save enough money to get his teeth fixed.

Patiently waiting with open mind (knowing that Rog is still lurking Laughing)

HarryFlashman's picture
HarryFlashman
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 1 2008
Posts: 54
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

And......I have to say what, exactly does hydroxy mean, in this context?An ion?A molecule?An energy source?

Sorry Im a bit late on this,but I do live in Japan.And his raving is ridiculuous.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Harry -

Spent some time in your neck of the woods recently.  Was in Yokosuka for a conference.  Spent a day in Kamakura at Hachimangu and in Hase with the Giant Buddha.

Up kind of late aren't you?

I am patiently awaiting the latest installation of the Transilvanian redefinition of the laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc.

HarryFlashman's picture
HarryFlashman
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 1 2008
Posts: 54
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Dogs, Wow, you were just around the corner! I live in Fujisawa which is the next stop from Ofuna on the Tokaido Line.
Sick to death of Kamakura,been there so many times.Nice for a day trip though ,if youve never been before.
Are you still a squid?Or were you over here on business?

Notice I got the Lucifer post( no. 666)!

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Chris Patton and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Flavian,

What happens to boys when they become men? They seem to become shadows of their former selves because they choose facts and detail over the freedom to dream up new and better. Lets you and I build mountains with the mind instead...

Like you, I ache. I want the world of achievement to sustain us. I want some clean and viable design to bridge an effortless gap between what hell we've created today to an endless, unlimited and unchallengeable force that cannot be priced or controlled in the way that all energy has been in the past. I want a world without wars fought on foreign soil, not for some political or religious or solicited frame deemed in the voice of freedom to the controlled within that country, with an eye on the oil or mineral within as an ulteria motive. I want the inocent to stop dying and I want happy inocent laughter; child birth without pain and a cure-all remedy for all human suffering. I want - I want - I want ...

The reality is a stark one. Too many of us - Too much damage already done - Too little time...

Six Billion Five Hundred Million. Roll it around inside your mouth - "Six Billion Five Hundred Million..."

Now calculate an average of 25 years to transition to another power source if we had one right now and today.

Now imagine that we need half of the energy we already use to rebuild what we already have to become sustained with this new power.

Now imagine what the result is going to be with a lack of funds to finance future oil extraction with this 'Greatest Depression' emerging like a grinding and unstoppable force across every country around the globe in all of its forms; less than 66 million barrels per day by 2013 from a high of 85 in 2007.

The unsubtle and cruel reality we face, you and I, is that from where we sit looking out at the rest of the world, there is a coming calamity that is going to run a gamut of blight across countries that so far have been sustaining themselves on other countries; food, energy, mineral... England, USA, Europe... and all of the people within. Australia, New Zealand...name a country and find a reality that best fits a date not so far in the future. I'll pick one for you - The 10th of April 2029 - where will you be; where will I be; what of the people of this forum - the forum itself??

One billion and below is a figure that punishes the mind. Grow an extra one billion and make that two; what of the other four and a half?

In all of my projections - studied, philosophized; fought over, cried over - I have but one remaining end result. You know what it is; everyone above me on this thread knows what that is too. We're preparing...

Imagine the world of tomorrow with one sixth of the people of today and the resources left still remaining. Imagine those minds remaining, learning from the past, if only that they could break this generation after generation of forgetting the past again and again...

Watch this man :-

Limits To Growth

What we have already designed we could have used 30 years ago...

  I'm not bent out of wack or overly grounded - I'm not stubborn in the view of free thinking - I'm yet to believe that my mind has crystalised in one form of thinking rather than being fluid. I'm open to that vital genius that has already seen a possibility. I want him to be altruistic though, and not blinded by fame and glory, running around proclaiming that something truly works rather than hiding behind his ego like a bully. He needs to be a quiet loner who sees nothing but the single-minded drive of real facts over fiction. I want him humourless and time-honoured in something he has placed a lifetime worth of study into and doesn't rashly follow a fad. Then I want him to realise the breadth and size of what it is that we're to lose and have lost already in just four or five generations. Can I think of one man that could carry that much weight on his shoulders and still be human? I Want - I Want - I Want ...

Watch this :-

Did You Know

...all built upon oil.

Imagine whether it is gas or coal or nuclear powered - we're still using steam engines. 2009 and my genius of a computer was powered by a turbine steam engine. Almost 20% of the power was lost in transit by the time it arrived to my home in January. Now, in April, I've severed my links to the 'grid' for almost 3 months - Water, heating, lighting; power to this very computer - battery - solar - wind. I project only 10 years ahead so far with all my spare parts from the day I'll nolonger be able to buy directly off of the shelf; not so long with the age that I am, my wife, my daughter who turns 5 in June; what then?

Watch this :-

The Coconut Revolution

 http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9073157933630784238&ei=LwvfSdPqJ5LQ2wKQxJSRDw&q=coconut+revolution

...how long do they have? Do you feel that the world we have so far, with all of its wars and politicians being run by corporations are going to let these people be with such a reduced amount of energy remaining?

Is Mexico City going to survive after its export of oil collapses by 2014? Can it deal with the American Dollar collapsing in upon itself, and soon? One and a half million exported barrels to the USA wiped out. Another million or so from Venezuela.

Mexico :-

Tribute Paid In Oil

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/salinasprice/2008/0620.html

Can we build upon this stark reality also, with so much industry gone east and all the easy drawn oil gone. Import 80% instead of 65% by... 

America, standing alone, has become one glorified service industry of coffee cups and hairdressers. Find a gardener amongst them who grows his own - 1 in 10,000 - 1 in 1000 - 1 in 100 - 1 in 4? :-

USA Famine - 1929-1939 realities

http://people.tribe.net/albionmoonlite/blog/dbfed29a-69f9-499e-a3e3-d8b5ae58c9ca

England is just the same :-

Farms For The Future

http://www.viddler.com/explore/PermaScience/videos/4/

...ask me if I sleep easy in my bed at night...

Flavian, we've run out of time...

Best,

Paul

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Harry -

Retired in 2003.  Work in Undersea Warfare community now as an Operations Research Analyst.  Was over on business.  You might have seen one of our ships in the news recently getting harassed by the Chinese....USNS IMPECCABLE. 

From what I saw in a week, I would enjoy coming back and spending more time.  If I had planned it in advance I would have jumped the bullet down to Hiroshima to pay respects.  Perhaps next time.

There - off the trip six.

Gungnir's picture
Gungnir
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 643
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

I just stumbled across this thread, it's interesting.

However, I do have a lot of concerns about the science, for a couple of reasons

  1. Einsten never published a Law of Physics, he only published theorums, he's quoted as saying it would be arrogant to assume that he'd discovered any law. Since he can only see so far, and his theories are products of that vision thus fundamentally flawed.
  2. One "Law" I happen to agree with is conservation of Energy, and I don't believe that the experiements take into account energy conservation. Since the matter used in the "hydroxy" electrolysis is not effectively measured so we cannot derive any concept of whether there is any matter to energy conversion during the process. Matter is Energy and vice versa.
  3. Heisenberg applies to all things not just at the quantum level, to consider this as only applying at the quantum level is very naive.This is more a criticism of the comments made by the OP than the actual scientific method.

This does not mean that it's impossible, or that it fundamentally breaks any laws, just that the science is incomplete.

If it's proven that Energy input to the system leads to increased Energy out from the system, then there is a matter to energy transfer somewhere, it's possible that there is a quantum singularity during the process that is converting sub atomic particles to energy as Hawking radiation that is added to the system however this is highly unlikely (positronic annhilation of electrons would have a net zero energy resultant thus is irrelevant to this theory), since the quantum singularity would likely be smaller than the overall de Broglie wavelength of an excited wavelength electron (the quantum equivalent of the Bohr Electron radius, although an electron is a point negative charge with zero radius at rest) therefore the only likely particle conversion is not possible (the electron cannot enter the singularity, and a quantum singularity does not have the gravitiational attractive strength to break the electron into its quantum particulates thus no radiation emitted). One Caveat to the above statement would be if the Electrolysis process generated significant quantities of Plasma, while creating a quantum singularity, however considering the equipment used this is unlikely too.

The other alternative is as DIAP mentioned Cold Fusion, however once again the Science used does not factor in measurements of Matter in the system, thus it cannot be ascertained whether there is a loss in overall matter during the process. Bear in mind that for 1000 Joules of energy output 0.01 Femtograms of matter would be converted (this works out at 35 nanograms of matter to produce 1KW of energy for a year, or 0.35 grams to produce 1KW of energy for a Million years Or 0.35 grams will produce 1GW of energy per year). However for Cold Fusion this has not been confirmed.

So this leaves us with the following possibilities

  1. The Science is incomplete
  2. There is a systematic error that leads to the result that there is more energy output that input
  3. The Science is wrong and we have a standard classical electrolysis reaction occurring (which has less energy output than input)

Occams razor aside all three are very likely scenario's. The Science is incomplete and it would require significantly more experimentation and observation to effectively identify whether this is an effective mechanism for energy production.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power
Gungnir wrote:

So this leaves us with the following possibilities

  1. The Science is incomplete
  2. There is a systematic error that leads to the result that there is more energy output that input
  3. The Science is wrong and we have a standard classical electrolysis reaction occurring (which has less energy output than input)

Occams razor aside all three are very likely scenario's. The Science is incomplete and it would require significantly more experimentation and observation to effectively identify whether this is an effective mechanism for energy production.

gungnir -

Possibility 1 would appear to be a foregone conclusion.  Although the level of experimentation outlined in the video  would lead one to conclude that the science has been applied as much as it could have been.

Possibility 2 might not be so much the occurrence of "systematic error" so much as calculations with omission.  I didn't get the sense from the vid clip that it was an act of commission, but it doesn't appear that all of the required energy inputs were included in determining the denominator of the efficiency calculation.

So as you alluded to, combining posiibilities 1 and 2 we end up at 3.

Were you able to find anything on electrochemical resonance?

Gungnir's picture
Gungnir
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 643
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Only in regards to Spectroscopy. Found here and I'm not paying $27 for the PDF 

But I did a Degree in Physics, focusing on Software Engineering, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, and Relativity (Special and General).

I empirically proved to my University Physics Department that Absolute Zero only occurs at a Singularity Event Horizon, two years before Steven Hawking published his mathematical proof. You can imagine the surprise when that paper was published Laughing and like I said then, Hawking probably came to the same conclusion with the same thought process 10 years before me and spent the next 10 proving it.

So I have a good background in the main theories posited in the original posting, although not the materials used. 

My assumption was taking the results at face value while investigating the where the additional energy comes from, and how the matter-energy conversion could take place (to respect the Conservation of Energy), the mechanics of how it happens on the electrode aren't really interesting to me Laughing. (It's called theoretical physics disease) However what could be happening to produce that result are of great interest to me, hence the discussion based on the assumption that the data was correct, and trying to thread the needle as to what could cause the effects observed. It of course also assumes that some form of controlled matter-energy conversion could occur at either the electrodes, or within the Electrolyte (hence the theoretical part).

As a complete amusing aside, "Hydroxy" Power makes me expect Billy Mays to pop-up and start to discuss stain removal.

flavian's picture
flavian
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 20 2008
Posts: 29
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Vanityfox451 - I've been a Peak Oil guy since before Chris Martenson's site and Crash Course. I've recommended Albert Bartlett's movie to so many people I can't even remember. Same with CM's Crash Course. So no need to explain me about our current situation.

Gungnir - you are the one that made me decide to continue posting

If you are really interested in the subject I recommend you to take a look here: http://pesn.com/2007/09/29/9500450_BobBoyce_Electrolizer_Plans/d9.pdf

Description starts with plain brute force electrolisys and moves on to the advanced stuff, explaining the concepts in a way that is simple and easy to understand for anyone. That is why I keep comparing it with CM's Crash Course.

The main group working on this kind of stuff can be found here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WorkingWatercar/

Other related groups: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/watercar/    and     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydroxy/

Conservation of energy is taken into account. The energy is transferred from the environment and that is why the box is sometimes mistaken for a Perpetuum Mobile. But there is definetely a transfer of energy, not just creating energy "out of nothing". Same like wind or solar or heat pumps. You cannot "see" air or photons or warmth, but you can extract the energy from wind or light or heat.

Once again, it is not regular electrolysis. Key factor is resonance. It is not using straight-DC, but pulsed-DC. With certain pulse width and frequency. The moment the resonant frequency or some harmonics for an individual cell are attained, the water molecules split faster and with less energy required. Think like when glass breaks at specific high sound via resonance.

The trick is finding and maintaining resonance for a stable and continous reaction. This is the role of PWM's. Pulse Width Modulation done in analog way for basic system and using digital controllers for more advanced stuff. BB explains all this in the original video I already posted.

Gungnir's picture
Gungnir
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 643
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Ah, you see you just lost me.

I didn't say you were creating energy out of nothing, I was contemplating the possibility of matter to energy conversion which is not creating energy out of nothing, matter is energy and vice versa, in the same way as all particles are waves, and all waves are particles. Adding in the incorporation of ambient environmental energy smacks of a half baked theory. Especially the claims of 1200% of Faradays maximum are caused by environmental energy, either you know it, or you don't if you know it you can state that the system draws X Joules of energy from air temperature, or Light, or whatever.

Come on dude, this is a flat Electrolysis system using Iron Electrodes doped with Carbon, Molybdenum and Nickel, yes you're using a PWM system to enable some form of resonance, but here's the deal, you're losing power all over the place, the only thing the pulsing is doing is preventing gas build up on the plates, which reduces electrolytic efficiency, but all of the components used are drawing power, there is significant heat produced as mentioned in the d9.pdf you have an inverter for AC (can you say best 80% efficient). Look at the physics

  1. You have a Electrolytic battery, that is converting sulphuric acid to Lead Sulphate and generating Electricity
  2. You have a bunch of electrics that are burning power including that 80% efficient Inverter
  3. You have an Electrolysis cell of Potassium Hydroxide solution that is generating Hydrogen and Oxygen 

Overall the entire thing has an Efficiency value of under 100%. The only advantage I can see is that it generates an explosive mix of Hydrogen and Oxygen, that can be piped into a vehicles engine.

There's nothing here that's even remotely interesting from a 20th century physics perspective. Yes the techology works but the claims of more energy out that in (by using environmental energy) just don't get over the fact your system is lossy as all hell.

 

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Flavian,

Dare I say this... Gungnir and Dogs are showing you that the elements you're working with are drawing a blank, no matter which way from friday you study for result. The major attributaries of any meaningful study also fall into what Chris Martenson calls ' time/scale/cost or rarity'.

Where I appreciate that you've been aware of Peak Oil long before the Crash Course, and have been, and are, an advocate of Dr Albert A Bartlett, the knife edge the human race is set upon should then be even more apparent to you than many who are starting out for the first time.

I want you to go in and look at post #2 and #3 of this thread that Chris Martenson had the time back in September of 2008 to answer personally. It is a short discussion on the subject of  fast breeder reactors and nanosolar, for which, as you read, you'll see that the answer is physically the same. I miss Chris's interjection now, because in the smallest amount of words, he always quite effortlessly both answers your question not only with a completeness and curtesy, but allows you to draw out your remaining time discovering better options unclouded by fact :-

Population

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/population/5017

However, there have to be hundreds of other sites that would be in the process, or have been in the process of discussing your subject in depth, far beyond the scope that you would normally find on such a forum as this one. The Oil Drum is just such a site. When I placed the word 'Hydroxy' into their 'Google Finder', I found these pages :-

Hydroxy - (The Oil Drum)

http://www.theoildrum.com/search/google?cx=000874532052579887663%3Amezzmhxsexy&cof=FORID%3A11&query=Hydroxy&op=Search&form_build_id=form-3adc6a537b7132420c247ca8cee0dc6a&form_id=google_cse_searchbox_form#310

This is one of the links supplied within just such a thread :-

http://water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=mercury18

You should appreciate that, by the length of my replies and the links within them, I'm doing my best to express an honourable reply without trying to screw you into a corner or shut you down. I owe you a reply and I mark that with great respect of you...

Best,

Paul

 

 

flavian's picture
flavian
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 20 2008
Posts: 29
Re: Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived 'Hydroxy' Power

Vanityfox451 - theoildrum was my main source of information in "the old days". And comparing water4gas with Bob Boyce is like comparing Cramer with CM. And arguing that they both talk about economics so it's the same... :)

Gungnir - "environmental energy" was just used to compare resonant electrolysis with other "invisible" sources of energy. If you want to dig deeper into the problem you get to the point where the current "science" reaches it's limits. We are talking about particles like gravitons, higgs boson and experiments like LHC still searching to prove their existence. It's the tricky border of matter vs energy and particles close to that border that is still uncharted teritory for our current "science".

Yes, I know that experiments look rudimentar, but it is the point that must be taken. Yes, the systems could use improvements, the inverters and engines or other components used need to be optimised. It's like comparing 100 year old diesels with current HDI or TDi engines. Same basic ideea, but incredible improvements added after years of true research and work. But Diesel's ideea was the first step. Same with hydroxy: the guys are only trying to prove it. To prove it really works. And it can be done. That's the whole point, isn't it ?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments