text:
Anybody interested in building HHO generators?
Using H2 and O2 as a fuel additive in modern automobile engines doesn't work. The US EPA regulates tailpipe emissions, so modern computerized ICE's are designed to operate in a way that limits NOx and CO emissions. That means lowered compression ratios and fuel with alcohol in it and a computer that adjusts valve and ignition timing if you try to go around those limits.
Adding H2 to fuel changes the way the fuel burns, but with lowered compression ratios, you can't take advantage of it. racing engines have high compression and water added to the fuel. Water absorbs infrared well, so heat from burning fuel is captured by the added water into expanding vapor instead of being transferred to the piston head and cylinder walls.
Higher flame temps mean better thermal efficiency but also more NOx production, so that is prevented in a modern car engine by design.
The basic design limitation of a reciprocating piston ICE is that the burning fuel wave front cannot match the moving piston head except at one RPM. Either the burning wavefront lags the piston or it overruns the piston (knocking and pinging).
The best efficiency using expanding gas to drive a machine is adiabatic.
This is impossible in a reciprocating piston ICE. If you get 15-20% out you have done well.
People who pursue electrolysis of water for car engine modifications are pursuing junk science.
no thanx
The Wright Brothers did not give a flip about "peer reviewed" research. That's the problem with eggheads...they rail against things they do not fully comprehend, and then once it's proven they act like it's always been known. This thread has always haunted by a troll. It must REALLY drive him nuts that SO many HHO Instructables have been posted.
(The gases are perfectly ordinary H2 and O2, not monatomic gases.)
Dollard claims that directly-observed phenomena are not real, and his best evidence for eather is a sketchy thought experiment (when other experimentalists have gone out of their way to do the experiments that should demonstrate the existence of the aether, with, obviously, negative results). He may mean well, but there are simple reasons why he struggles for funding.
If the aether is real, then the basic reality of the universe is an invariant frame of reference. In such a framework, relativistic effects cannot happen. Yet, relativistic effects are observed, and used, every second of the day (it's a big part of how the GPS network functions), ergo, the framework of reality is not invariant, and the aether does not exist.
By all means, work to reduce our dependecy on fossil fuels, including using electrolysis to generate hydrogen, but do it in a scientific context to retain the credibility such works requires to be widely accepted and used.
Oh, and the same website claims "Tesla's X-rays are different from the X-Rays we use today. Far more powerful. Far Safer, no radiation damage. Many other unexplored benefits".
It's a real disappointment to see such creative energies so badly misdirected...
[Citation needed]
"Don't understand why our government back in the late 70's done this as well. Since NASA proven that it works way back then?"
[Citation needed]
"But we must remember also the fuel injected engine wasn't allowed in the US until years after other countries done it......"
[Citation needed]
And also due to the fact that i had been working on a number of projects for my own need to prove out various claims. For instance, building circuits that power small devices bases off the "Aramenko Plug". Which i have verified for myself. Also "Konstantin Meyl-transciever". Which i have also built and have verified for myself. Both crude but well enough to validate.
Lastly, my interest has switched toward power production means and using electric motors instead of Internal Combustion Engines.
No amount of discussion or posted videos will suffice many critics. As i have witnessed with other concepts that i have experimented with and duplicated. They are still reasoned that its nonsense. For these individuals no amount if evidence will suffice.
Due to the fact these individuals themselves never even bother to actually build anything for themselves but merely rely on textbook knowledge and feel they don't need to experiment. This was Teslas greatest complaint towards Einstein. As he replaced experimentation with thought processes. He cane up with a way things should work in theory before experimenting and in some cases entirely.
Ni matter what you think you know, you cannot replace experiments. At best the experiment will chalk up one more for your theory or illustrate weaknesses in the accepted theories.
As it should be.
For these individuals no amount if evidence will suffice.
Properly-acquired evidence is what will satisfy the skeptics. Measure the input and the output.
Unfortunately, no electrolysis cell subjected to rigorous testing has ever stood up to the claims made for it as an overunity device, and the most vigorous promoters of HHO, the ones who make the wildest claims, and most loudly complain that the technology is being "suppressed" by some sort of conspiracy, they never allow their devices to be subjected to proper scrutiny.
Can we guess why, boys and girls?
Andrija Puaharich as a scientist gives the modern chemical equations of just how more energy is released and specifically, that increase of energy in btu's as the energy consumed to split the water. And not contested by his contemporaries
"Tested by a man who works for a company that did wirk for NASA" does not mean "it works". It could easily mean "it was switched on by a man who laid some asphalt in the visitor car park at Cape Kennedy". If it worked, provide a link to the peer-reviewed paper, published in a reputable journal, that describes exactly how it achieves overunity.
Come on, if all patents didn't require verifiable proof then every conceivable concept would be patented by businesses in an endeavor to eventually lay claim to the fool who actually succedes in making them rich since they would already have all bases covered.
Meyer method of electrolysis using hv low current as a real reproducible way to split water? That it does so with far less energy consumed? What exactly.?
As this to me and others serious about it recognize.
Now we have a way to get closer at carrying your gas station without you so to speak
What I dispute, and you have not supported, is that;
> The gases produced are in any way different from normal hydrogen and oxygen.
> The gases are monatomic.
> That less energy is required to split the water molecules than with normal methods of electrolysis.
> That burning the resultant gases produces more energy than the gases of normal electrolysis
(The two previous points resulting, of course, in overunity)
> That the flame is somehow different to the flame of normal hydrogen (eg melting steel, whilst leaving flesh undamaged)
I am also annoyed at the insistence of many "HHO" believers on referring to an electrolysis cell as a fuel cell. A fuel cell takes in hydrogen and oxygen gas, releasing water and electricity directly, without combustion.
Clear enough?
Give us the evidence - patent numbers, peer-reviewed data - or admit that you have nothing to show for your claims except a lot of glass and wire.
I witnessed this first hand at firebird race track in Idaho.
The HHO gas filled a large drum that was setup to look like piston and cylinder.
as the gas detonated by spark plugs in the drum the lower arm lifted a weight as the cylinder imploded. Yeah, I would say thats rather different.
gas can be arranged so there is only an expansive explosion.
I never saw burning of hydrogen causing radioactive materials too quickly alter they're halflife either as has HHO gas demonstrated.
Burning a relatively low mass of H2 & O2 in a large surface-area container, at ambient temperature and pressure will produce very little heat & pressure-rise, and will very quickly lose that heat to the metal of the cylinder & piston.
That means the products of the burning - water vapour - will condense to liquid water, dropping dramatically in volume, reducing the prssure inside the cylinder, allowing air-pressure to push the piston inwards.
That's not "different", it's an incredibly inefficient way of harnessing the energy used to generate the H2 & O2 in the first place, and tells me two things:
- The man promoting it as a new power source was a charlatan.
- All those who fell for it lack the basic level of scientific education to pursue this line of research.
We in america, already can buy off the shelf water welders. Using this gas.
And is not disputed as being implosive. Furthermore, has even demonstrated that radioactive material can have its half life altered to a stable state quickly while exposed to this flame.
That aspect alone causes all kinds of monkey wrenches into what's believed to be a constant. Some even suggest this makes carbon dating not so much of a a accurate tool after all.
Oxygen produced by electrolysis does not, cannot lack electrons.
Oxygen can only be found in a form where is acts relatively positive when it is chemically combined with fluorine.
You ought to be careful making claims about "water welders" - if hydrogen and oxygen burned "implosively", then striking the flame to a water welder would immediately cause the flame to be drawn back into the gas supply with absolutely catastrophic consequences. You cannot have it both ways.
"And is not disputed as being implosive."
Yes, it can. I am disputing it. Provide evidence to prove me wrong, if you can.
"Furthermore, has even demonstrated that radioactive material can have its half life altered to a stable state quickly while exposed to this flame."
Oh, my, the claims get wilder and wilder! Is this another claim you are going to expect me to swallow whole, or can you provide a link to the evidence this time (remember, you claim all these things are proven facts, so you should easily be able to provide a link to a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal).
"That aspect alone causes all kinds of monkey wrenches into what's believed to be a constant."
It might, if you could provide any evidence...
"Some even suggest this makes carbon dating not so much of a a accurate tool after all."
"Some"? Who is this "some"? I know people who suggest that the Queen of England is actually a reptilian alien, part of a global conspiracy to rule the world. "Some say" isn't even hear-say!
With every post, your claims get wilder, your evidence gets scarcer and your credibility gets more meagre...
As for oxygen loosing electrons. Of course it can. They are stripped of after the electrolysis has been done to separate the gases. Both Meyer and Puharich does this. You will realize what your missing when you follow his chemistry equations showing this exchange. I only have it in pdf. Let me try to find were I got it.
Thanks by the way for posting material. I was able to view my files but I couldn't get it to attach. I will try again.
Yeah, sorry for the bad grammar. Partly out of bad habit, partly due to using my cellphone to post from. This darn adaptive text is really frustrating.
By the way I do apologize for the exchanges. My only goal is to produce gas from water economically so that it can be used as an alternative fuel.
and again it doesn't take much effort to achieve that aim better than old school methods.
Did you get a chance to view JLN. Naudins website? This is one place that I have used over the years to attempt duplications. Good place to look over.
Are you familiar with the Bitorroid? Already seen and submitted to MIT.
It powers a load through reactive power. Yes thats correct. reactive power consumed on input side while real power use consumed on load side.
Sonoluminesence when first discovered had over a dozen theories as to explain. Now its down to just a few but even these guys won't put there stamp on they're theory. Hmmm something this basic still puzzles.
I work in the semiconductor industry with dry etch equipment. I service these million dollar tools. Have also spent a few years in refrigeration.
am degreed. But I have learned a few things that at one time I would have dismissed completely and now have questions. As some projects I have duplicated does not fit my education explanation. Yet work to some degree as some of the so called wild claims. Trust me I know how it sounds.
I am no pioneer and everything I have done was from attempts to put too rest some claims only to my supprise lead to more questions. Education definitely has some aspects wrong this much I have learned. What I found in the years journey is that I'm not alone even for engineers with greater credentials than myself.
go down this road and you find numerous educated ppl who don't ascribe to every aspect of how our current theory are explained along with our math.
This one does not learn while in school. You walk away from your education and and degree as if all of science is in unanimous agreement with how we explain the world around us from a physics view only to be surprised many highly educated ppl don't.
Thank God for that or we would never have moved out of the last two centuries.
many breakthroughs in science come from ppl not even an expert in that field but stumble upon it. If the experts had it figured out already why didn't they discover those discoveries? Such as in optics. Thanks to Raymond rife.
Dr kendal who worked with him almost got lost his medical license because he discovered the way to grow a bacteria culture outside of living flesh. And was attacked viscously to recant as science of the day said was impossible.
Thanks to him we modernized medicine. Rife self taught greatly added to optics.
Bottom line. Ppl loose site that any accepted theory is just that a theory. Until something better comes along that can reproduce and account for our phenomena areas simpler. The current model will suffice. Not by any means that its the end all on the topic.
You keep claiming there is evidence, then you fail to present it, distracting yourself with the fallacy that other areas if science were modified, then any challenge to mainstream science must be correct.
You utterly fail to notice that the successful challenges were only successful because they presented large amounts of verifiable evidence that was properly peer-reviewed.
One erroneous gem stood out;
" Ppl loose site that any accepted theory is just that a theory. "
There is no such thing as "just a theory" in science. Anything that is referred to as a theory has been tested to destruction, and nobody has been able to provide a better way of explaining reality.
Gravity is "just a theory".
Evolution is "just a theory".
The conservation if energy is "just a theory".
The claims for "HHO" are just a hypothesis, and one for which you have consistently failed to present any evidence.
I can here you now back then arguing it can't work with science quotes of the day. Lol.
There are tests done by ppl on youtube as well. Jnnaudin. Site.
Problem is you choose to doubt everything and not try to build anything period.
Wow has our educational system reallly declined that poorly that you are unwilling to investigate through experimentation? Big difference between you as a H. S. teacher and the teachers I had in high school. My teachers fostered thinking even if it went against the grain. They would explain why it wouldn't work but still be positive and encourage you to test the rules.
Same as Dr. Bifield Brown to the Thomas Townsend. He encouraged The lad, to explore. This was an area that should not have worked. And the scientist was a colleague of Einstein. That led too two new discoveries.
Big difference between him and you as Teachers.
Dr. Andrija Puharich was a well respected scientist in the science community.
To claim that his fuel cell essentially the same as meyers version is bogus is plain stupidity. The man knows more than the both of us combined and then some with a record.
Why ask for patents that you don't believe they are worth the paper their printed on in the first place? You asked so there you go.
Truth is i do remember running into you on another forum. I will find it and post. You already had the patents as I stated earlier. But since I called you out, now your playing dumb.
An experiment doesn't have to be performed by UCLA to warrant that it works. There is more than enough proof available just within youtube alone. These are not all conducted by amateurs but with ppl more credentialed than yourself so don't be foolish.
Either experiment for yourself or wait to pass judgement.
If Thats not good enough, this is what I would recommend.
Stick your head back into the sand. If that is what helps you sleep at night. So that you can teach the same material to your next class kmowing the world is still the same.
Consider; "Doctors said Dave would never walk after the accident, but he proved them wrong. They tell me I cannot grow back the leg that was eaten by a shark. They were wrong about Dave, so they're wrong about me."
That is the exact situation you are in.
Same as Dr. Bifield Brown to the Thomas Townsend.
Good grief, who told you that the Byfield-Brown affect was not supposed to work? Townsend noticed it, and explained it. I used the effect to build an electric motor out of plastic bottles. EHD has absolutely nothing to do with electrolytic over-unity.
And to claim that I am trying to stop such work is not just wrong, it is bordeline defamation - I keep demanding evidence, which requires that you (or somebody) does the experiments to gather the data.
Why ask for patents that you don't believe they are worth the paper their printed on in the first place?
So that I could examine them. I now have, and found them wanting.
"Truth is i do remember running into you on another forum. I will find it and post. You already had the patents as I stated earlier. But since I called you out, now your playing dumb."
That will be interesting...
"An experiment doesn't have to be performed by UCLA to warrant that it works."
True. It does, however, have to be performed with scientific rigour, and recorded in enough detail that the data can be assessed by third parties.
"There is more than enough proof available just within youtube alone. These are not all conducted by amateurs but with ppl more credentialed than yourself so don't be foolish."
Thank you, you just made my day - "it's on YouTube so it must be true!" Oh, my word, I actually laughed out loud when I read that (and when did YouTube users start posting proof of their qualifications?).
"Either experiment for yourself or wait to pass judgement."
I am waiting to pass judgement. I have been waiting for a long time, but you consistently fail to supply the evidence upon which to pass judgement.
Yes from YouTube.your attempt to lump that site into the crackpot pile is false. Because other sites have also replicated some devices as demo on youtube.
Besides there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of place to share as ppl like yourself.
Yo make darn sure of that. Too lazy or inept to build an attempt
1. So what? Where's the EVIDENCE?
2. The one-many-fallacy again; some videos on YouTube are true, therefore all the videos that I want to be true are true. (If they are so good, why have you not provided a link?)
"Besides there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of place to share..."
Post a working model here.
Submit your properly-reviewed data to any of dozens of reputable science journals.
(PS: Finishing your posts with unfounded personal insults does not make you right.)
You don't get YouTube in your neck of the woods? Seriously , you cannot go pull up a few on your own that resemble even the most credible layout to your liking?
Dude, with each one liners of show me, solidly shows what kind of purpose you linger on this site for, and its most definetly not answers.
You don't get YouTube in your neck of the woods? Seriously , you cannot go pull up a few on your own that resemble even the most credible layout to your liking? "
No, I cannot find any credible videos of HHO generators on YouTube. That is why I asked you to link to the ones you seem to know about.
"Dude, with each one liners of show me, solidly shows what kind of purpose you linger on this site for, and its most definetly not answers."
If I don't want answers, why do I keep asking you for them??
Read all his memos and tech briefs. Look at the sources or even querry the proffesional sources directly about their results that they claim worked. Go find sites where crude examples are being built. Watch videos of units in operation.
For starters. Rather than thumbing over bits and pieces.
You post links to adverts, you post links to newsletters from interested parties, and you say "go and look at YouTube", then you accuse me of being lazy.
Until you can actually post some actual EVIDENCE, I am done with you. When you think you have some actual evidence (remember; peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal), then drop me a PM.
Until then, I'll file you under "Believer in Woowoo".
If you want a more sympathetic audience, a brief google (your favourite advice) reveals:
HHO Forums
Alternative energy forum
David Icke forum
(That last one is probably right up your street. Enjoy.)
Complete false and misleading assertions, that no evidence has been given is a bold faced lie. Read through all the material documents for yourselves. And not just these 4 pages, if your honestly curious about this technology.
t's a good job I decided to monitor you. Just because I have given up on debating with you until you provide the evidence for your claims, that does not mean you can tell lies about me or about what you have provided.
Reminder: the evidence required is a link to a proper peer-reviewed paper in a reputable science journal.
What you have actually provided so far:
- Bald assertions.
- Logical fallacies.
- Accusations of laziness
- Accusations of attempts at suppression.
- Accusations of conspiracy.
- Defamatory personal comments.
- Links to adverts for plans.
- Links to newsletters written by interested (ie biased) parties.
- And, now, accusations that I have been lying.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The evidence has been given as you asked. It can be found on those few pages I asked you to read .. it gives the proffesional sources testify to its validity ..
Mind you all research tests and conducted by multiple research groups at usually several centers or university prior to ending up in a joirnal. Waiting for that does not diminish the fact research from respected universities has not been completed and posted their findings. Proof is available.
Secondly, the entire process is already within science. The various aspects are individually already used in one capacity or another today. There is nothing unscientific about whats proposed.
NO, it has not. What you asked us to read was a "newsletter" written by a man who was found GUILTY of FRAUD in a court of law.
You also rudely asked me, "What part of the clearly presented proof about this technology being placed on secrecy by US Gov't, under potential financial undue duress did you miss?"
Again, you have failed to answer my request for ONE instance of verifiable proof to that accusation! Just because a man (found guilty of fraud) says it happened, doesn't make it so.
You should have also noted in the same bogus newsletter you cited, that Meyer's said "Earlier, there was enormous foreign opposition to the Water Fuel Cell technology; now, we're receiving enormous support from both the United States and foreign countries who have recognized the viability of the Water Fuel Cell technology and want to bring the technology to the marketplace."
That newsletter was written almost 20 years ago! If there was such "enormous support", then why would YOU say that it would bring "potential financial undue duress" to the U.S.??? AND if the technology actually worked why is it not being used??? Could it be because it was proven in a court of law to NOT work??? And that's why Meyer's was found GUILTY of "gross and egregious fraud"???
The lawsuit was over the company bein formed to market the WFC injector. And wanting their money. Obviously this only helps to enforce the gag.
The newsletter lists, professional sources who tested the claims with their findings. Whether it was pro meyers letter, doesn't change the fact independent confirmation was conducted. You have the names and can contact them directly if you wanted. These are universities and respected sources. But you and I both know you won't bother.
Point is, you guys are not truly interested in the facts.
lastly, I posit once more that no aspect of the process is outside of accepted science. So what part is considered woowoo?
I suppose they're test doesn't qualify? Dozens of tests with similar results all over The net? Hmm. Yeah your right all of them are scammers I suppose? Done by incompetent individuals? Every last one. Not perfected but illustrating that the process is sound. That a scientist patented essentially the same thing a few years earlier that is very well recognized. Yeah, you must be right he's a fool.
Do you realize how you sound asking repeatedly for evidence when I showed you where to view it?
And most important have distinguished myself from you by encouraging experimenting for oneself? You do realize ppl here will go read for themselves?
Some will decide to build a model? You don't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in your crumbling dam to stop innovation.
I never claimed to be an expert. What I learned was through what others freely shared and through duplicating to some degree tests.
Seeing is definitely believing.
@the difference between you Sir, and me is I constantly encourage replication. As you won't be happy until you decide to prove it for yourself by experiment.
You have already demonstrated that no test conducted thus far is worthy.
By the way. It doesn't cost very many "pounds" to build.
My first was from scraps. When I got some gas. I bought SS.
the only real cost.
So, once again here we are asking why Sir, do you even waste your time on this forum if not to cause ppl to stop in they're tracks. You offer zero on a topic you seem to enjoy.
For example, from the material you have seen. Including videos on and patents. When a a forum is opened for the explicit purpose to iron out things you offer nothing but contempt. Never once have you, being a teacher mind you. Offered to anyone, well I personally don't believe any of it and here is why? And inform them on what others have done and claimed worked for them. By giving information that could be built from to start.
Nope. Not one peep from you. Completely silent. In fact nothing you do here is toward the reason the post was started. Asking again, Just exactly why are you here? Awe, we already know why.
A teacher that doesn't encourage experimenting is a sad thing. And understand that it can be put to rest very easily. So my hope, is your not really a teacher because thats terrible way to raise the next generation.
As you so fondly like to do, lets put the shoe on the other foot.
specifically within accepted theory, explain what parts of either Meyers or Puharich system cannot work. Resources pls. As to the following :
molecule cannot be polarly aligned as done?
The pulse circuit doesn't step charge a cap?
Or a true resonant circuit in Puharichs Or Meyers other patent. Steam generator patent work?
That physics somehow prohibits stripping of electrons off The liberated gases?
These should be good. As far as the circuit basic functionality is completely in line with nearly every electrical engineering textbook in print today.
Yet, you to Sir, seem to actually goe against commonly accepted things.
Correct, they don't qualify, because you have not given the data, and have not described how any data was collected.
"Do you realize how you sound asking repeatedly for evidence when I showed you where to view it?"
I sound boring, I know, but I will keep asking until you fulfill it - posting adverts is not presenting evidence.
I repeat: I am asking for reliably collected, peer-reviewed evidence from a reputable science journal.
"You don't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in your crumbling dam to stop innovation."
You are not paying attention. I want the experiments to happen, I encourage it, but I expect them to be performed properly, and the evidence collected properly, and presented properly.
"A teacher that doesn't encourage experimenting is a sad thing"
How am I discouraging experimentation? All I am asking is that those who claim these devices work present the evidence, just as I would ask a old child to show me a table of results after they perform an experiment.
"So my hope, is your not really a teacher because thats terrible way to raise the next generation."
What is wrong with demanding proof? Why are you so against the presentation of evidence? You seem to think that because you tell me that "somebody on YouTube" has done it, I have to immediately believe you?
"...explain what parts of either Meyers or Puharich system cannot work..."
Yet again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the basics of scientific methodology.
I do not have to prove the mainstream paradigm. It is the generally accepted state of things.
Anybody who wishes to overturn the paradigm, such as they did with the structure of the atom, with the mechanisms of inheritance, with evolution, with plate tectonics, with the heliocentric Solar System, they all have to provide swathes of evidence that they are right.
Get it? You are claiming things that are the antithesis of the Laws of Thermodynamics, so you are required to provide the evidence.
Remember, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed as easily.
Several conducted in that forum as well as others I have provided that do as well.
These give the following. Complete electrical schematic used. Nature of configuration. Real time measure of volts and current at input. Showing gas produced. Showing scope screen shots. Measure liter per minute obtained.
How can you possibly declare. Theres no data to review?
I have given you your blessed university sources. Go read them in the the HHO news letter 11a. Pages 4&5 and 14&15.
You never direct anyone to sources available on the subject matter. Whether you personally believe them or not. Every word from you has been to try and convince ppl this process is without scientific vigor. Which is absolutely not true.
Rather it is already recognized as completely in line with accepted science. As many proffesional sources testify.
But it's so easy to prove me wrong - show us the rigour*, show us the evidence.
Rather it is already recognized as completely in line with accepted science. As many proffesional sources testify.
So many, yet you still cannot direct us to these sources.
- the electrical schematics are not even in question. They function as to their intended purpose individually to the whole process. If you are not trained in electrical theory, you have no basis to comment or certainly wait for some university or journal to sign off on. As they are in compliance with normal teaching. That would be like asking for every electronic circuit to be validated before believing each various superhetrodyne circuit is valid. Nonsense. Any student can evaluate the integrity of the circuit already using common knowledge learned and or circuit simulations. The circuits are not being contested period.
- whether water can be separated into it's constituents then is reasoned. And we already know this is a accepted fact the or you have to discard science and working principles already doing just this. Simple electrolysis would have to be invalidated in general for this to be wrong.
- whether water can be vibrated and stimulated in a resonate cavity then is all you have at this point to evaluate based on comammon science. Many processes in other fields base they're understanding and working principles from this fact.
Sonoluminesence vibrates water and trapped gas bubbles injected in to the water. A well established fact would have to be also invalidated if it was not possible. Either by piezo mechanical vibration or electro static fields.
The inventor of TV
where Philo T. Farnsworth, using multipaction and his Fusor would have to be invalidated. So this portion of the functionality of the process is by extension valid.
- you are left then with only questioning whether the gases liberated can have electrons stripped from them in a controlled manner. This is required in far too many areas of science to list as paramount. It too as a basic principle and fully recognized process is also un questioned. And goes without saying.
- one is then finally brought to asking simple chemistry questions and physics questions as to the new energy levels of said treated and stimulated gases thermal energy levels in btu. This clearly shows that it can be very large. Considerably greater than gasoline.
- so, taking the entire sub parts on merit by extension the are based on comammon science, the process as a whole is fully expected to function as claimed.
Since not one aspect is in disagreement with accepted science.
Give your sources. Link to the proper, peer-reviewed papers in reputable science journals.
NOT adverts.
NOT newsletters from interested parties.
NOT "stop being lazy, go and look at youtube".
Then go here since your too lazy to actually do some investigation.
Goto this site again in http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/stanley-meyers-wfc-tec/patents-documents/
Read WFC news letter 11a, pages 4&5 and 14&15.
Which provides university sources and countries that have 100%duplicated and or confirm the process as accepted science fellas.
It is you gentleman that are going against accepted physics.
Let me repeat myself yet again: REPUTABLE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL - a poor-quality copy of a twenty year old newsletter published by an inherently-biased source (ie authored and edited by the same person who is promoting the device) is not reliable evidence.
Accepted physics says that "HHO" (over-unity through electrolysis) does not work.
You have consistently failed to prove otherwise.
Are you that lazy? Your not interested in truth. Who you trying to kid.
The working circuit in myers most replicated cell is 100%a based from common electronics. That is what I do at work. Portions of the circuit are entirely on an ic chip. Available and in everyday use. Do you question the fact the circuit can cause a rising unipolar voltage? If so, you don't understand that that is basic electrical Engineering. Is it that water can be aligned between electrical electrodes? As this too is basic physics. That part of Meyers claim isn't even in debate by science as already taught today. If you have a problem with this then its you who don't realize that your not even in line with accepted science.
The confusion for some of my colleagues was his resonance claims when the diode prevented oscillation to take place as shown. The rest is not in dispute.
Without having the patent schematics or tech briefs in front of me I cant illustrate. Tucked away in some pages it is clear to electrical engineering that one depiction is an parallel LCR tank circuit. In another no diode is used at all. Same as Puharich which does truly resonate as even a student in electrical engineering kmows. It's common knowledge. The spacing of the plates forms a waveguide. Again very basic electrical engineering. Used everyday.
the water is vibrated. Again in alignment with physics principles. No mystery.
Stripping electrons from the gases is not even new. It too is perfectly in accordance to already accepted science. The Dry Etch plasma tools I maintain do this as a controlled process for making chips.
I repeat myself. Why bother even coming to an HHO forum period?
You have zero interest and don't believe anything or at leasr protray.
Mind you, Meyers system did have a gag order by the USGovt. It in the docs. On the link I already provided. Certainly the oil industry doesn't want it common knowledge.
You have zero basis for even being here except to do what you do well is convince young minds to not even waste the time to build from patents and others and see for themselves. Thats your only motive.
If it was simply and innocently bases on evidence as you claim. You would look at the more reputable sites and most definitely duplicate for yourself.
Seeing how you have zero interest in doing anything, that leads back to you being a a proffesional disinformation agent.
To everyone else on this forum, I sincerely apologize for enduring all this material. You have to experiment plain and simple. Get help if its not your expertise but make an attempt
to I promise you won't be disappointed.
I keep demanding your evidence. I want you to stay focussed on the task and question at hand, that of presenting your data that proves "HHO" generators do all they claim.
The distraction is you, talking about Tesla, sonoluminescence or conspiracies.
By telling me that I have to do the experiments for myself, find my own data, that tells me two things:
1. You have not any data of your own that proves the system works.
2. You do not know of anybody else that has the required level of evidence.
Oh, you keep saying that people have proven it, but, in reality, all you present as evidence are adverts and instructions to "google it" (when you don't even spell the names of the people or their devices properly, googling is almost impossible).
a) The evidence requested
b) Relevance (what the heck does sonoluminescence have to do with electrolysis??)
Heck are you aware that even mathematically the bumble bee was considered not to be able to fly yet we all know it does. Same for when the first helicopter flew. At one time prior it was believed it couldn't stay aloft. Of course today we fully understand but not prior. Do some history.
If science was so flawless and worked out. With todays level of science there should be no question to how Sonoluminesence functions concretely. And yet we wait in spite of all mans understanding for an answer that even the authors are sure of.
Incidentally, whenever you have science where one set of rules apply in general but a modified set applies to answer a phenomena then that fact alone is illustrating that you are adding missing something in your model.
One set of rules should apply equally across the board.science has always been resistant to change often from stubborn and proud individuals.
Because they tend to view they're subject as being the pinnacle, the teacher and cant have someone with little or no training possibly show them something new.
You keep making this same, very basic, error.
You cannot assume that, because you know of simplified popular (and incorrect) examples where science changed the way they modelled a situation, that somehow means that anybody who disagrees with modern science is automatically right.
In all your examples (or, at least, the correct ones - nobody ever said AC was impossible, or that bumble bees should not be able to fly), the model was only changed after large amounts of reliable, peer-reviewed evidence was gathered and tested.
That is what I am expecting from you.
(And your final paragraph is just wrong, and has been for about 200 years.)
Incidentally, the man made many discoveries and was the most respected electrical genius of 1900s. In many american newsletters and official magazines of some time only to vanish to obscurity after his wireless power patents.
Hmmm. Went from recognized almost God status to a nobody. Fully recognized as expert in ac, ac motors. Designed niagra falls system. Exray. The first radio. Per US Supreme court. Flourescent bulb. First remote controlled boat. For US the Navy. Radar. Capturing atmospheric energy as a viable power source. Verified by germany prior to WWII.
And somehow he is a fool when it comes to wireless power?
How convenient ...
(This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Tesla recorded how encouraging he found his teachers to be, and that AC was discovered before Tesla started his work, and was already being worked on for power transmission, and he was even beaten to the drop over AC motors [cf: Galileo Ferraris]...)
You keep asking for evidence. It exists from well enough sources that have duplicated to varying degree. Some on youtube yeah. And others.
Myself. Not spectacular but it worked.
For you to try to act as if all tests posted are from high school dropouts is hilarious.
Since you have the autobiography, you'll be able to name the teacher...
"Your son is a star of first rank."
(From a letter sent by the Dean of the Technical Faculty of Austrian Polytechnic in Graz, Austria to Tesla's father.)
"You keep asking for evidence. It exists from well enough sources that have duplicated to varying degree."
If the evidence exists, why can you not present it?
It would take me uneccessary time to go pull all this for you when you have a pc. If you are honestly curious please check it out. Posting all of these, is simply fruitless. As it gets us way off the topic. I only did to illustrate science is not as solid as you make it sound. And yes, will be further changed as we move foward. Exactly as history already shows us.whether you bother to take the time to research any of the stuff I have mentioned here, someone surely will.
you dont have to have exact address to find it. Simple googlinng will get you there.
You made the claims, so it is your responsibility to back them up by presenting the evidence. That is how science works.
On a topic about "HHO", it is not off-topic for me to ask for evidence that the claims you make about "HHO" are correct.
"With respect", if you cannot be bothered to provide your evidence, I cannot be bothered to ascribe you any credibility, and will continue to question your claims until such time as the evidence is presented.
Water trying to form under unstable conditions is not expansive. It readily implodes.
No, water forming under combustion readily condenses.
its a science fact that oxygen can loose some of its electrons making it more energetic, thus when attempt to form the water molecule more energy is released. More only if by some way you could cause this with less power on the entire splitting process.
Dude. I am only after trying to make electrolysis at at least 70%a efficient. As Thats all you need in order to use water as an alternative fuel. Who cares if its not 100 or God forbid more. Thats not my aim.
No, it isn't.
Oxygen *gains* electrons and becomes both charged and more reactive.
It does not magically gain energy. The energy lost from the system during burning, or in a fuel cell, was input to the system during electrolysis.
For claims to the contrary to be true would require a fundamental rebuilding of the Universe from the Planck scale up.
Have you ever looked at Dr Andija Puharich chemistry notes showing how this is factual? I have it in pdf. But lol I couldn't even post a simple photo the other day.
Dr Andija Puharich? The same one who brought Uri Geller to the US? Oh, yes, I've come across him - he thought water molecules were tetrahedral, and that both matter and the human mind were made of "ELF magnetism". Strange that he never published in any peer-reviewed journals... One thing he never claimed, though, was that he got more energy out of the hydrogen & oxygen than he put in.
was another solid proof you don't read any patent. You gloss over and thumb through for a few consecutive sentences and thats it. You read maybe 10you sentences an your an expert as to its contents. What joke.
Meyers patents also make the same claim in his patents and explain how this is possible. But seeing how you cannot read, its of no consequence you don't kniw. The main reason this works out, is because the process turns electrolysis on it head by using Voltage (VOLTROLYSIS) and the mechanism for doing the work.
voltage is not consumed. A trivial current is all that is required to produce very high voltage. Therefore is only using small amounts of wattage on input side.
In this manner alone you are no longer comparing apples to apples but rather apples to oranges. Very different in the amount of required power to achieve the same feat.
To attempt arguing that gases do not have elevated energy levels in an ionized or their elemental atomic state is against science as currently taught. Not withstanding many processes today depends upon this fact. When the gases are allowed to recombine thermally. Its fully calculated value of energy is released.
due to the work of the potential and resonance principle very little energy is needed to cause this electron stipping to occur. The users input energy is a modest amount. Yet, now when the gases combine alot more energy than what you physically input is yielding in the burning of the gases.
Don't misunderstanding what I am claiming. Not in the universal sense, that you some how produced extra energy, no. The thermal, the voltage fields and resonance of vibration accounts for that energy fully. As to the work done to remove those electrons. Its accounted for and now you have a gas at a higher energy state. There is no free lunch implied. The energy consumed equals that too separate the gases and in other embodiments account for stripping those electrons.
Meyers process could be reasoned in 3 stages.
1 Separating water into H2 & O2.
2 Resonance and vibration in a cavity
3 Stripping electrons from liberated gases.
90% or more demonstration only achieve Stage 1. This is only modesty at best better than regular DC electrolysis. The burning gas doesn't have the energy as regular gasoline and not as efficient in fact as a alternative at this point. Would require specific quantities to even run an engine solo as compared to gasoline.
Using Stages 1&2, greatly simplifies the need for additives for one, as a cost and greatly reduces the electrical power demand too achieve the same thing. Merely an energy savings.
Meyers stated goals was always, Stage 3. It is at this stage that the game has changed tremendously in your intended goal as compared to what little electrical power you consume.
More or less
Oxygen can be stripped of electrons as well.
The fewer it has in its orbital rings increases its activity and raises it energetic state.
Electrolysis does not strip oxygen of electrons. Electrolysis does not produce positively charged oxygen. Electrolysis does not produce "unstable oxygen atoms".
(Go on, prove me wrong.)
By stripping those gas atoms of electrons it raises the combustible energy when burning. Which is what Meyer was doing and not plain ole electrolysis.
Read here the gist of the process.
The problem is not the patents. Its your failure to attempt and experiments for yourself.
No, the failure is the complete lack of evidence. Posting an advert for plans does not constitute evidence.
Why should I spend out hundreds of pounds to build a device that, according to all available verifiable evidence, does not, and cannot, perform as claimed?
Provide the evidence, and you will have thousands of people queuing at your door to buy the plans. Anybody who holds relevant will become overnight billionaires.
All you have to do is prove it works.
You claim to have built one, where's your data? Energy in, energy out, control systems, comparisons with standard cells etc?
The Joe cells that were so hot for awhile on the net? Are just simple dc cells that were take advantages of two sources already there in your engine.
Namely doing electrolysis under vacuum and the thermal benefits that come with that. Thats it.
Until one uses the well known case of making the O2 atom unstable.
If done economically, the energy will be greater now due to the energetic activity of this Oxygen with missing electrons. It was only this way Meyer could run a car on smaller amounts of gas as normally would be required. The gas produced being more than 3x in thermal energy than simple burning of hydrogen and oxygen.
O2 is a molecule, not an atom, and is not unstable.
"If done economically, the energy will be greater now due to the energetic activity of this Oxygen with missing electrons."
As I hav pointed out elsewhere, oxygen does not lose electrons during electrolysis, it gains them.
"It was only this way Meyer could run a car on smaller amounts of gas as normally would be required. The gas produced being more than 3x in thermal energy than simple burning of hydrogen and oxygen. "
Really? These claims get ever more extravagant - yet you still have not provided one scrap of actual evidence to back them up.
point that is rather insulting. When yo ask for patents and sources you yourself have looked at. Whether you believe it is another thing. I would bet money you have in hand those patents. Don't play coy. I will post them along with reference that gas does produce more energy than used to split the water.
Meanwhile, what is your purpose here other than to stop all efforts in this avenue.
since you have never offered the slightest of suggestions. I remind you of the purpose this thread was opened. Your sole purpose here is to prevent anyone from discovery through frustration and hoping they will simply stop and give up before even trying.
you act ignorant when you are a vulture on multiple hho forums. Obviously you don't care about the topic so why visit such forums? Dr.bifield thomas townsed teacher encouraged him to explore the movement of a charged capacitor rather than behaving as you do. That led to two new discoveries.
Tesla didn't listen to his teacher and modern thought that ac power, was not possible. And we have ac today thanks to him. What is seldom talked about is when he first pioneer the idea he was badgered much the same with why according to science of the day why it was not possible.
As the far as patents. In spite of your knowledge patents have been and can be rejected based on violating certain laws and current thought. The simple page you to want says this on patent office rules. In general practice it works as you point out. There are former patent examiners giving testimony about those abuses.
henry moray was denied a patent twice over his germanium valve the first transistor. Because science ardently said was impossible. Only two have bell labs later patent exactly that. Moray attempted patent on this transistor separate from his power supply. Cold fusion was attacked such as well and now is accepted in science.
You attempt to view science as if there is universal agreement on all aspects of a given science theory. Which is completely not true.
Gabriel kron one of our most recognized experts even today in the art electrical engineering had views contrary to some taught theories. Regarding open systems.
All of this is trivial and only serves your goal of infecting a forum by trying to get it steered away from anything practical. And tying ppl up squabbling is you guys most effective tactic.
So I remind you, read the purpose of this forum once more and either offer suggestions from material you already have seen and cough. Up ideas or please shut up as you so rudely tell everyone else here.
It to is sad that ppl can't find one place to exchange ideas without trolls like you here simply causing distractions.
So obviously HHO is not your interest. Then why waste so much of your time posting on HHO forums.?
Truth is you are probably on multiple HHO forums spouting this same garbage. I would bet money you are even a moderator one site right?
Taking pleasure in rudely insulting and attacking ppl. And anyone that challenges you simply gets booted from the discussion.
My next guess is you are not a moderator here and that probably has you frustrated. So please go to a site you are more in control of and take it out there on some poor sucker.
I fell bait to your play. From now on unless we talk specifics regarding WFC and how to construct in a civilized manner,i will simply ignore you from this point.
No, I don't have them. I want them, but I cannot seem to find them. Strange.
Meanwhile, what is your purpose here other than to stop all efforts in this avenue.
since you have never offered the slightest of suggestions. I remind you of the purpose this thread was opened. Your sole purpose here is to prevent anyone from discovery through frustration and hoping they will simply stop and give up before even trying.
My purpose is education and the exposure of woowoo. HHO is not real, its claims are not real. I keep asking you to prove me wrong, but you do not even try.
you act ignorant when you are a vulture on multiple hho forums. Obviously you don't care about the topic so why visit such forums?
I do not visit other forums.
Dr.bifield thomas townsed teacher encouraged him to explore the movement of a charged capacitor rather than behaving as you do. That led to two new discoveries.
Tesla didn't listen to his teacher and modern thought that ac power, was not possible. And we have ac today thanks to him. What is seldom talked about is when he first pioneer the idea he was badgered much the same with why according to science of the day why it was not possible.
Ah, the old "they laughed at XX, and he was right, so if they laugh at me, I must be right" fallacy.
As the far as patents. In spite of your knowledge patents have been and can be rejected based on violating certain laws and current thought.
You said the patents exist. Now you're telling me they don't? PLease, try and keep your story straight!
henry moray was denied a patent twice over his germanium valve the first transistor. Because science ardently said was impossible. Only two have bell labs later patent exactly that. Moray attempted patent on this transistor separate from his power supply.
See "laughed" fallacy above.
Cold fusion was attacked such as well and now is accepted in science.
Really? Where? Last I saw, it was being studied, but not repeated.
You attempt to view science as if there is universal agreement on all aspects of a given science theory. Which is completely not true.
Yes, it is. That is how science works. An hypothesis is studied and tested until nobody can find significant fault in it. At that point, the hypothesis is promoted to "theory".
cough. Up ideas or please shut up as you so rudely tell everyone else here.
No, I asked *you* to "put up or shut up", because you keep making extravagant claims, and have not provided a single scrap of reliable evidence to back yourself up.
It to is sad that ppl can't find one place to exchange ideas without trolls like you here simply causing distractions.
Do you accuse everybody who refuses to swallow your ideas whole of being a troll? Or is that just a personal attack?
So obviously HHO is not your interest. Then why waste so much of your time posting on HHO forums.?
Truth is you are probably on multiple HHO forums spouting this same garbage. I would bet money you are even a moderator one site right?
Taking pleasure in rudely insulting and attacking ppl. And anyone that challenges you simply gets booted from the discussion.
Wrong on all counts, but that paragraph gives us an insight as to why you are here.
My next guess is you are not a moderator here and that probably has you frustrated. So please go to a site you are more in control of and take it out there on some poor sucker.
You really ought to do your research before you cast around many more ad hominem attacks.
I fell bait to your play. From now on unless we talk specifics regarding WFC and how to construct in a civilized manner,i will simply ignore you from this point.
So, what's changing? I keep asking you for evidence of your claims, but you keep ignoring my requests.
I wonder why?
TL:DR version: you're paranoid, and avoiding direct requests for evidence by resorting to baseless personal insults.
Behave, or I will remove your comments.
I take issue with name calling. Especially calling someone a troll when you yourself have only been a member here for 17 days.
There is a be nice policy here. Please review the be nice policy. Be nice.
Thank You
Third point we disagree, and as funny as it is you being science classes cheerleader don't dispute that water can be split more efficiently through pulse dc or from rf as compared to standard electrolysis. You should check back with your sources as you'll find even they differ from you on this point.
It is not hard to beat the efficiency of simple dc.
While using alternative ways such as pulse dc, efficiency is increased lowering your input demand to achieve the same thing.
Doing this allows for a wonderful phenomena to be exploited. Known as "multipaction ". This increases efficiency even higher. When energetic oxygen combines with hydrogen more btu is released.
You want a source. Google Puharich fuel cell method. He has a paper showing the way more energy in heat is obtained through achieving that condition economically.
Do not tell me to google, provide the link yourself.
Remember; extraordinary claims required extraordinary levels if evidence.
Dont be so lazy. Either you are intersted or not. Dont claim things don't exist simply someone doest put everything in your lap.


text:
Planting deep roots
Big Elm Brewing is growing
|Christine and Bill Heaton at their Big Elm Brewery, displaying their line of beers. Will Siss / Republican-American
For owners Christine and Bill Heaton, Big Elm Brewing is more than just the culmination of two careers. It's where their two children are concocting their first memories.
Big Elm opened in October and is one of those family-owned businesses you want to succeed, if only for the sincere and hardworking crew keeping it afloat.
I met the Heatons in early December, when I stopped by for one of Big Elm's Saturday afternoon open houses at its site: a large hunk of a building in a quiet, rural industrial park.
Christine met me while wrangling 3-year-old Tobi and 18-month-old Agnes into a back office, which doubled as the "nap room."
While she settled the kids down for a while, I bellied up to a small wooden bar the Heaton's had erected for tastings. To my left were windows that allowed me to peer into the brewery itself. Shiny new tanks and barrels made a dent in the outsized space. The tricycle and sandbox gave it the appearance that taking the kids to work day was every day.
Christine, a round-faced, dark-haired Pennsylvania native, came back and was joined by her husband, who sported the mandatory brewer beard. I wanted to get in a little background on the brewers before sampling my way through six taps' worth of microbrew.
The brewing chemist
Like any good love story, the Heatons' begins with shared interests. In their case, it was beer.
Christine and Bill met while both worked for Victory Brewing in Pennsylvania, in 2002. Technically, as Christine tells it, "he hired me."
Christine, 37, had been homebrewing while an undergraduate chemistry major in Millersville University. After she graduated, Christine served in the Peace Corps for three years, helping local citizens improve their agriculture.
Upon returning, despite pressure to do almost anything else, Christine decided to pursue a professional brewing career.
"It was a bit of a boys' club," she said. "I remember, there were a few people I talked to who right away asked if I could throw kegs around, because they said that was what I'd need to do. I said, 'No, but I'm going to brew.' I don't think they understood that."
As much as she was impressed with Victory's consistency, following house recipes got a little stale by 2005. Christine moved on to study brewing at the Siebel Institute's Doemens Academy in Munich, Germany. There, she used her chemistry background to her advantage and continued her love affair with Pilsner, a quintessentially German style.
"I don't think the chemistry degree necessarily makes me a better brewer," she said, "but I know why things go wrong."
The idea man
It was with Bill, 42, that Christine hatched the dream of running a microbrewery — one in which she could blossom and put her talents to the test.
Bill is a fine arts major who, after a stint in the advertising business taking product photos, also turned to the beer trade. Although he was a brewer, Bill rose within the Victory ranks as manager of the packaging line.
"I decided that I didn't want to become the art director who I hate," Bill said. "My weekly release was brewing, and I guess I had the stereotypical quarter-life crisis. I just typed letters to 16 brewers and said I wanted a job."
He ended up in 1996 cleaning kegs at a Chambersburg, Pa., brewery before settling in with Victory.
Wanting a fresh start in a new region, the Heatons decided in 2005 to run Pittsfield Brew Works, a brew pub they took over in Pittsfield, Mass.
By their own admission, the Heatons said the business became unwieldy. Ultimately, soon after Tobi was born, it was time to take the plunge as a small, independent brewer.
"It took us two years to find a location," Bill said. "After looking at a bunch of places, we started Big Elm."
The name comes from Sheffield history. The oldest community in the Berkshires, tiny Sheffield has deep agricultural roots and its symbol is a big elm. This elm grew for more than 400 years at the corner of Route 7 and Silver Street — just yards from the brewery. It had to be cut down in 1926, but lives on in the town seal and Big Elm Brewing's logo.
Fittingly enough, the Heatons took a dirty former plastics compression building and created a brewery whose motto is "Get Back to Your Roots."
"We have everything we have ever worked for invested in this company," Bill said. That's no small gamble.
To ensure the brewery's stability, the Heatons launched its Big Elm IPA with a tweaked recipe based on the Legacy IPA from the brew pub. I found the Big Elm IPA to be explosively fragrant and complex, and while bitter at first, mellowed out after each sip.
Their 413 Farmhouse Ale, a saison, is a marvel. Light and fragrant, it's made with local hops and pink peppercorn from Brazil, Bill said. It was one of the stars at a recent beer dinner at nearby Route 7 Grill in Great Barrington. It was paired with a hearty kale salad.
Big Elm partnered with the Route 7 Grill chef, who smoked malt to create a "rauchbier" (smoke beer) and paired that with a butternut squash soup.
The brewery — which also offers a blond ale, a stout and a stout aged in oak bourbon barrels — doesn't worry about hitting style specifications exactly. "We make it the way we like it," he said..
Lester Blumenthal, the owner of Route 7 Grill as well as a bartender, said Big Elm Brewing is a pleasant addition to the area and a big seller at his restaurant.
"We put on the blond and the IPA and they became 70 percent of our sales," Blumenthal said. "Now [Big Elm is] on four of my taps and it's 90 percent of what we sell."
The kids were up and about when it was time to leave.
As we passed the various pieces of kiddie equipment in the brewery, the Heatons were all smiles with their children by their side.
"They're going to have great stories about basically growing up here," Christine said, looking at her daughter. "One of Agnes' first words was 'brewery.'"
Want to reach out to the Beer Snob? Like him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter: @BeerSnobCT.
Big Elm Brewing
65 Silver St.
Sheffield, Mass.
Brewery tours are noon to 4 on Saturdays
Route 7 Grill
999 Main St.
Great Barrington, Mass.
Follow Us
Post a reader commentWe encourage your feedback and dialog.
Please be civil and respectful.
If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican.
Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.
Log In
|Register / Forgotten Password?

subset: commoncrawl


text: Looking for Massage Therapy? PennySaverUSA's classifieds can help you save money on Massage Therapy in San Francisco, CA in San Francisco! PennySaverUSA has classifieds for Massage Therapy & more! Shop our classifieds to find cars for sale, dogs for sale, apartments for rent, sporting goods, part-time jobs, and classifieds for home improvement and other local services!


text:
November 25, 2012
Surfer at Long Beach – Flickr pic of the day
This photograph was taken at Long Beach, near Kommetjie, by our Cape Town. Live it. Love it. Flickr group member Frames-of-Mind.
"The surf has been cooking in Kommetjie lately, and the locals have taken full advantage. Long Beach is one of South Africa's best surf spots when the conditions are right," says the photographer.
Do you have images of Cape Town you'd like to share with us? We'd love you to join the Cape Town. Live it. Love it. Flickr group!
Image © Frames-of-Mind


text:
Civil Service
Commission meet
STEUBENVILLE - The city's Civil Service Commission learned Monday Police Chief Bill McCafferty is still interviewing candidates for a vacant police dispatcher position.
Commission Chairwoman Delores Wiggins said the commission sent a list of qualified candidates to McCafferty, who will make a decision on the successful candidate.
Wiggins also said the city is facing a budget deficit and may initiate a hiring freeze in the near future.
Follansbee woman sentenced Monday
STEUBENVILLE A woman was sentenced to four years' probation and restitution Monday by Jefferson County Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph Bruzzese in connection with embezzlement of funds from the Steubenville Kennel Club.
Michelle DiCola-Parks, 52, of 213 Rockdale Road, Follansbee, previously was indicted on felony theft and felony unauthorized use of a motor vehicle after allegedly stealing $45,381 from the club. She pleaded guilty to theft Monday in a plea agreement with the Jefferson County prosecutor and was sentenced to probation and ordered to pay back $42,000 in restitution.
A co-defendant, Joyce M. Firm, 72, of 310 Forest Drive, Toronto, previously was placed on probation for five years by Bruzzese after Firm pleaded guilty to felony theft. Firm was charged with taking $15,700 as an officer with the Steubenville Kennel Club. Both woman could go to prison if they fail to make restitution and complete the terms of their plea agreements.
Sheriff offers safe
hunting tips
STEUBENVILLE - Jefferson County Sheriff Fred Abdalla said hunters during hunting season must use common sense and caution.
Abdalla said homes in the past have been damaged by errant shotgun slugs. He said windshields of vehicles traveling on state Route 7 also had been hit. Abdalla said those incidents were the result of careless hunters hunting too close to homes and the highway.
Abdalla urged hunters to use caution when taking a shot and not to hunt near homes or roads.
Abdalla also reminded hunters not to leave shotguns in open view inside vehicles because it is an invitation for a thief. Make sure the weapon is unloaded prior to placing the gun in a vehicle.
Deer season begins in Ohio on Monday and runs through Dec. 2. A two-day deer season also will be held on Dec. 15-16.
Sheriff's department
patrolling store lots
STEUBENVILLE - The Jefferson County Sheriff's Department will begun its annual holiday safety program for shoppers on Friday.
Sheriff Fred Abdalla said deputies through Dec. 24 will patrol parking lots at the Fort Steuben Mall, including Wal-Mart, Tri-State Plaza and the Hollywood Plaza. He said deputies will provide safety to holiday shoppers, assist stranded shoppers with vehicle problems and cite violators of handicap parking restrictions.
Abdalla also advised shoppers to remain safe by not flashing a lot of cash, parking in a well-lighted area, not carrying too many packages at one time, keeping packages locked in the trunk and out of sight and walk to your vehicle with the door key in hand.
Cera appointed to coal committee
COLUMBUS - State Rep. Jack Cera, D-Bellaire, has been appointed to serve on the Coal Technical Advisory Committee.
The special committee is assigned the task of assisting the Ohio Coal Development Office in achieving coal development plans, project proposals and research and development projects. It also provides guidance is reviewing proposals for grants, loans and loan guarantees.
The committee is made up of members representing the Public Utilities Commission, various coal production companies, the United Mine Workers of America, electric utilities, manufacturers that use Ohio coal, various environmental organizations and two people with a coal research and development background, one of which is employed by a state university. Additionally, the committee is comprised of four legislative members.
"The committee not only reviews and makes recommendations concerning technical solutions to problems, it helps guide specific strategies, innovations, industry trends and regulatory compliance.
While Ohio looks at different avenues to secure energy sources for future generations, it is important that we continue to invest in coal technology,
This committee helps keep Ohio's coal development progress moving forward, and I am happy to play a small part in helping Ohio determine the production of environmentally safe and reliable electric power through coal," said Cera.
Residents can win composter
NEW CUMBERLAND - The Hancock County Solid Waste Authority is holding a recycling bin drawing for Hancock County residents who use the recycling center.
Residents who visit the center, 832 Gas Valley Road, can enter a drawing to win a tumbling composter or one of 40 recycling tubs. A drawing will be held at 2 p.m. Dec. 22.
Residents wishing to enter the drawing must show a valid driver's license and a copy of their most recent trash bill.
The address on the driver's license and trash bill must match. Identification will be required to claim any prize, but winners do not have to be present for the drawing.
A list of winning entries will be posted at the facility by Dec. 29, and the names of winning entrants will not be given out over the phone. The recycling center opened in December 2010 and is now open six days a week. Winter hours are 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturdays.
From staff reports


text:
To every simplicial manifold is associated its simplicial deRham complex.
Is there any literature that discusses explicitly to which extent this classical construction, regarded as a (contravariant) functor from simplicial manifolds to dg-algebras, is homotopical?
For instance: simplicial manifolds naturally embed into the category of simplicial presheaves on the category of manifolds, on which we have the standard local model structure on simplicial presheaves. On dg-algebras there is the standard model structure on dg-algebras.
Is there any literature that discusses explicitly the respect of the simplicial deRham complex operation of the respective weak equivalences?


text:
As you plan your next international vacation, you may want to consider visiting the nation that gave rise to modern civilization as we know it. Located in southern Europe, Italy was the seat of power for the Roman Empire over the course of 500 years of human history. Today, those who visit Italy come to enjoy the nation's culture, food, and wine, while taking a glimpse back in time at various ruins from the days of the Roman Empire.
Please provide this reference number to our customer service center representative on request, so we can help you better


text:
Purdue Boilermakers Snowy Knit Hat
Show support for your favorite NCAA team with this Snowy Knit Hat. This beanie style hat will keep you warm during the game no matter rain or shine...or snow if we are being honest. The combination of ear flaps, a fleece liner and a top of the head pom will make this your favorite game day hat this season. Stay warm, and represent!


text:
Ohio MileWritten by David Freiburger on August 14, 2012
At 10 minutes before 10 a.m. on April 28, it became official. Garrell Patterson left the starting line in his Silverado pickup and arrived in the timing eyes 1 mile later at 132.247 mph. It was the very first pass at the Ohio Mile, and the first record. After nearly two years of work by the East Coast Timing Association and the city of Wilmington, Ohio, it all became real.
The gravity of the moment carries a history back to 1995, when Bonneville Salt Flats racers John Beckett and Tom Sarda got sick of dragging their junk clear across the U.S. to run at the land-speed races at El Mirage Dry Lake in California and the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah. The two men established the East Coast Timing Association--a cross-country counterpoint to the Southern California Timing Association, founded in 1937--and located a runway in Moultrie, Georgia, where they conducted standing-mile racing under class rules similar to that of the SCTA. At the time, the standing-mile format was virtually unknown, though the concept was the same as that of El Mirage (1.3 miles) and Bonneville (5 miles): from a standstill, accelerate to the highest speed possible before the timing lights.
The ECTA almost instantly relocated from Moultrie to an old WWII runway in Maxton, North Carolina, that had been used to train glider pilots. The ECTA worked hard on that old stretch of concrete, clearing off many feet of debris and patching it repeatedly during 16 racing seasons from 1996 to 2011. Early last year, the ECTA learned that the 2011 season would be the last on the Maxton Monster Mile. The prospect felt like that of dismantling a family.
The job of holding it together fell to the ECTA board--Joe and Donna Timney and Keith and Tonya Turk. While there's no shortage of old runways in the country, there's plenty of resistance to racing: liabilities, noise, a general fear of the unknown. With runways, there's always the FAA and Port Authority folks who are much more comfortable with "no" than "OK." The secret, Keith says, is to find a city that wants the revenue from racing. The ECTA found that in Wilmington, where the local airport had been deserted by the DHL shipping company in 2009, creating a loss of 6,000 to 10,000 jobs, depending on who you ask. It also left the city's Airpark with a 9,000-foot runway that wasn't being used. It looked a lot like a racetrack but without the race cars. In the end, an estimated two-million-dollar-a-year boost to the local economy had those race cars showing up.
The first Ohio Mile event was capped at 175 entries. The location is central in the heat map of gearhead activity, and it didn't surprise us when registration sold out in two weeks. On race day, 169 entries showed up despite a 90 percent chance of thunderstorms. The Wilmington News Journal reported an audited 2,632 spectators over the weekend and claimed that license plates from 38 states were spotted, plus one from Mexico and a few from Canada. Hotels were sold out all over town. In all, a raging success--and the largest ECTA race ever.
Then the part you really care about: What's it like to race the Ohio Mile? Great. The surface is about 500 feet shorter than Maxton's, but it is so much smoother it's ridiculous. The concrete is slightly crowned and has 1?8-inch grooves that are a couple inches apart, perpendicular to the track. That helps the runway dry quickly but also makes the tires sound funny. There are some painted stripes at the starting line and a few big Xs painted downtrack, but those are the only traction challenges. The second half is slightly but noticeably downhill. The Ohio track is a little better than the Texas Mile and at least as good as the 11?2-miler in Maine.
As for records, the Ohio Mile brought a clean slate. The Maxton record books were locked at the end of the last meet of 2011, leaving behind a 200 MPH Club of 121 members (two of whom scored their 200-plus records at Moultrie, Georgia). Only 54 of those were in a car (as opposed to a motorcycle)--and that's over 16 seasons. The first Wilmington event wrapped with 24 entries into the Ohio Mile 200 MPH Club, 14 in cars. We expect many more in the season to come, with events held in June and July (before this issue went on sale) and on September 29–30. For more information, see ECTA-LSR-com.
Remember Garrell, who made that first pass at Wilmington? He tells us, "Fifteen months ago, I was in a wheelchair, and the doctors said I wasn't ever going to be better. But here I am." There's the hidden value in racing. Thanks to the city of Wilmington for helping make that type of personal accomplishment survive.
See The Video!
See video of the first Ohio Mile on HOT ROD Unlimited! Scan the code with your smartphone, or go to YouTube.com/MotorTrend and search the channel for "Ohio Mile."
More Photos From This Article View Slideshow
The Van Blarcom and Gilmore roadster has some history, having been raced first by SCTA Chief Car Inspector Steve Davies, then by Tony Thacker and Jimmy Shine from So-Cal Speed Shop (and driven 180 at Bonneville by this author for a story in HRM). Steve Van Blarcom ran it 212.419 at Ohio.George Jobe's '66 Belvedere is an original Hemi car that's been in Ohio its whole life. George drove it to the Mile and ran in the 130s.
Sam Gable and Rooster Rose beat their '55 Ford's Y-block mill into a 152-mph pass! It's a 312 stroked to 352ci, and with 13.0:1 compression and a lot of homegrown speed equipment, including that finely crafted intake manifold, it made 500 hp on the engine dyno.Bill Amaral from Cape Code was inspired by the HOT ROD Spl., building a '79 Camaro with a 522ci big-block making 896 hp at 7,400 rpm. It ran 198 mph.This is a legit '56 Corvette that's got C4 suspension and a 770hp, 415ci aluminum small-block and a G-Force T56. It's been 197 at Bonneville.The ECTA is all about the volunteers, many of whom the visitors and racers will see and thank. Behind the scenes are timers Joe Timney (left) and John Eken.Wayne Jesel's old Busch car ran 210 mph with its 300ci Dodge NASCAR mill and Jimmy Barton at the wheel. With the author driving, the air shifter on the five-speed Jerico fragged and left us with a 193-mph record, but no 200 Club hat.As with the SoCal land-speed events, plenty of hot rods and customs carried the spectators. This group is from the Road Devils of Ohio.Joe Thibodeau used to run a Ford GT at Maxton, but he brought his new Boss 302 Laguna Seca to Ohio. Mostly stock with a few external bolt-ons, it ran 164.153.
Steve Sturim had a fresh rebuild on the Model A four-banger in his roadster and took the V4Flathead Gas Modified Roadster record at 110.045 mph.At the opening event of each ECTA season, HOT ROD hosts the Top Speed Challenge, in which we give jackets to the drivers of the fastest cars in each of the two classes for street-legal cars--Real Street for single-carbureted, non-boosted vehicles and Super Street for injected or boosted cars. In Real Street, Frank and Larry Waddell have won a whopping four times with their SB2-powered Mazda ("A 2000 Rick Hendrick throw-away"), this time blasting 207.260. Mike Reichen scored his second jacket with his '94 Mitsubishi Evo II, detuned to only 35 psi of boost on the 2.0L four-banger, running 215.862 mph and setting records in four classes. We hope to see more of Mike at Drag Week.Brian Acton and the Geezer Racing team were seriously in the chase for one of the HOT ROD jackets in the Top Speed Shootout, running 213.320 mph. Unfortunately, the aero situation at the top end made the car too light to safely push to higher speeds.


text:
5 Priceless Works of Art Destroyed by Unintentional Hilarity
No slapstick movie is complete without at least one scene where the buffoonish main character encounters a priceless work of art and then accidentally destroys it in some hilarious way (preferably with the involvement of a runaway monkey). Yet, as we have established previously, a shocking number of the world's great pieces have in fact been ruined by something exactly that ridiculous.
#5. Picasso's La Reve Gets Elbowed
Do you ever get excited when talking, start gesturing too much with your hands and accidentally knock something off a table? Was the thing you broke a work of art worth $140 million? No?
That's pretty much what happened with Picasso's La Reve. When the artist was 50 years old, he painted a portrait of his 22-year-old mistress Marie-Therese Walter, presumably because he wanted to immortalize her beauty, and also because nailing a 22-year-old at 50 is something that deserves to be documented. As an Easter egg, Picasso even painted half of her face in the shape of a semi-flaccid or semi-erect penis (depending on your level of penis pessimism).
Le Reve
We tend to be penis optimists.
To date, no other artist has found a more succinct way to announce "I hit that" than painting his own genitals draped across the head of his girlfriend.
So What Happened?
Steve Wynn, the man who owns half of Las Vegas and is the 512th richest person in the world, owned the painting in 2006 and even considered naming one of his hotels after it. Despite it being one of his favorites, he was prepping to sell it for $139 million, a deal that would have made it the most expensive piece of art in existence. Here are two other facts that are pertinent to this story: Steve Wynn suffered from retinitis, which affected his peripheral vision, and Steve Wynn loved to gesture while he talked.
Restless hand syndrome is a serious condition that affects dozens of casino owners worldwide.
He had brought a few friends up to see the painting the weekend before it was set to sell, and while he was standing in front of it, expounding on the relationship between Picasso and the dick-faced mistress, he gestured too aggressively and threw his elbow right through the canvas.
Fortunately, the elbow didn't completely ruin the painting. La Reve has been restored, but the damage was done. The refurbished portrait has since been valued at only $90 million, which means that in a single second, Steve Wynn had given Marie-Therese a hole in her arm just big enough to suck $49 million worth of artistry out of the rest of the picture.
What's worse is that the hole was also big enough that it must have been impossible to explain to the insurance company without them wondering whether or not Steve Wynn tried to fuck his favorite art piece before selling it.
#4. Qing Dynasty Vases Are Victims of Clumsiness
In the fast-paced, mad world of antique ceramic sales, Qing Dynasty vases are the equivalent of grade A heroin. Their decorations are so minute and intricate that they sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece, and occasionally for $69 million.
New York Times
"But we can't put it under plexiglass, because that would be expensive."
Given how precious they are, you'd think that a museum with a few on exhibit would invest in some glass cases, but not the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. No, the antique ceramic curators there needed the rush of danger just to feel alive. They weren't just showcasing three Qing vases -- 300 years old and estimated to cost between $400,000 and $500,000 -- without any protection; they kept them on an unguarded windowsill at the base of a staircase.
Fitzwilliam Museum
Sadly, the "No Stooging" sign they put up went unheeded.
You know where this is going.
So What Happened?
Sure enough, someone toppled down the stairs and shattered the vases into smithereens. Nick Flynn, a museum visitor, stood at the top of the stairs and dove head first into the exhibit at the bottom, presumably because he hates Chinese antiquity more than he values his own life. He smashed all three vases, then stood, dusted himself off and walked out the front door.
Chris Radburn, via Guardian
"Pobody's nerfect!"
It wasn't until he saw himself on the news crumpled at the bottom of the staircase in a pile of shards and the message "Have you seen this man?" that he knew it might be a big deal. And even then he didn't turn himself in; instead, he hid out for three months before a team of 25 police officers broke down his door and arrested him.
Miraculously, the vases have been entirely glued back together and returned to the museum, but people aren't coming to see the artifacts anymore -- they are coming to see the staircase and the windowsill where Nick Flynn tripped on his own shoelace and created a piece of slapstick that surely was worth more than everything in that museum combined.
Fitzwilliam Museum
It turns out comedy is priceless. But only because the vases weren't insured.
#3. Lucien Freud's Paintings Are in a Landfill Somewhere
To say that paintings by Lucien Freud are not cheap would be a dramatic understatement. His pieces are so expensive that Freud made history by selling one of his own pieces at the highest price ($33 million) for a work by a living artist. You may be wondering what a $33 million painting might look like. Well, behold:
Wikipedia Commons
You can stop beholding now.
The point being that every piece by Freud, including fat, naked women sleeping on what looks like a fraternity couch, is guaranteed to sell for over six figures. It's surprising, then, that his paintings keep disappearing in trash dumps.
So What Happened?
In 2000, an oil painting of plants by Freud was shipped to Sotheby's auction house, where it was going up for sale. The painting, inside a wooden crate suitable for travel, arrived in the storeroom at Sotheby's, where it was promptly removed again by two porters who mistook it for an empty crate and dumped it in a garbage crusher. No one could track down the remnants, either, because no one realized the problem until after the painting was on its way to an incinerator. Sotheby's has apparently never seen a single sitcom, because they made no effort to paint another version really quick before the showing.
"Something still seems off."
Fortunately, that painting was only worth about $180,000, which pales in comparison to the portrait Freud did of famous antique book dealer Bernard Breslauer. The painting was never appraised, but experts suspect it would have been priced in the millions; that is, until Breslauer himself destroyed it because he thought Freud had painted him with a double chin.
That's right, the man in the portrait and owner of the painting destroyed a piece worth more than the economy of a small country because the artist painted his chin funny. And yet, as far as we know, the naked woman in the painting above never complained.
This is Freud's self-portrait, proof that he didn't make anyone look good.


text:
Is there any website offers youtube video downloads via webservice or just produce downloadable linkk from youtube url
closed as off topic by Eight Days of Malaise, phwd♦ Jul 13 '12 at 15:29
Questions on Web Applications Stack Exchange are expected to relate to web applications within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
I use SaveYouTube.com for that purpose. Given any YouTube video link, this service produces the video and audio (direct download) links.
Let's say you want to download a YouTube video which has the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUfBJrnrPNg
In your browser's address bar, put the word "save" just before "youtube", and this takes you directly to the download page: http://www.saveyoutube.com/watch?v=uUfBJrnrPNg


text:
I have reached Eldin Volcano and am trying to activate the Goddess Cube at the end of the forked path. No matter how many times I hit it, it won't flash. I have followed the guide, so don't think I have missed anything. I didn't do the Pumpkin Juice side quest. Could that be why it isn't working?
Hold your Wiimote (sword) up and let it charge a Skyward Strike, then slash it so the sword beam hits the Goddess Cube. This ALWAYS works on Goddess Cubes, there's no reason why it shouldn't. The corresponding chests may not be obtainable right away (in the sky), but there's no bugs about these things so it should work perfectly fine if you hit it with a proper Skyward Strike.
If this is the Goddess Cube across the lava river (in the room one or two before the dragon), then you can't reach it until you get the True Master Sword. Until you get the True Master Sword, your Skyward Strike is not powerful enough to make it across the lava river.
If you are playing in Hero Mode, you can get the Goddess Cube right away because your Skyward Strike is already at full power.


text:
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
What To Do If You Are Temp Banned - 07-09-2010, 07:21 AM
If you are banned from forums, be it for spamming, ignoring or deleting staff warnings, constant rulebreaking or for making multiple accounts, you will be temporarily banned from forums for anything from two days to two weeks. When that happens, you will be unable to come on forums, tho your access to the mainsite will be unrestricted. Here are some options about what to do if this happens to you.
1. Contact myself and Kitty thru Dollmail if you feel you have been wrongfully banned, or to negociate a ban shortening. If you are truly sorry and promise not to do it again, we may be amenable to shortening your ban period. This will mean that the rest of the time that you would have been banned, you will be on probation instead. If, however, you are a repeat offender or if you have been banned for a serious offence, for example trolling, harrassment or obscenity, then your ban will not be shortened.
2. Once you have sent a Dollmail to both of us, don't send any more. Wait and be patient; we will have to wait til the other is online so that we can discuss your situation between us. When we come to a decision, we will inform you thru Dollmail. Remember; just cuz we are discussing your case, does not mean that you will automatically be granted a shortening. Please accept whatever decision we come to, whether it is a ban shortening and probationary period, or if your ban remains unchanged.
3. Do not register new accounts to get back on forums. We know when you are doing this, and all this will achieve is for you to have your new accounts banned, and your temp ban lengthened on your main account, so that a ban of twenty four hours for spamming could end up as a ban of two months for making extra accounts.
4. Probation is just that; probation. Don't think that just cuz your ban has been shortened, you can come on forums and misbehave. If you behave yourself during your probationary period, then it will be lifted when it ends. If you break any rules during it, then your ban will be put right back, with extra added.
5. Once again, please note that this only will happen in the case of minor crimes. Trolling, harrassment, posting of personal information, flaming, backsassing or attacking forum staff, constant rudeness to forum staff or members or posting of obscenity will ensure that your ban remains, no matter how many times you ask.
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Threaded Mode