Author Topic: THE V.I.C.  (Read 27220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: THE V.I.C.
« Reply #80 on: December 18, 2012, 14:05:32 pm »
The energy must comes from the fact that you dissociate water using volts not amps, its a chain reaction.

The fact is that this way of dissociation in theory does not require the same amount of energy that electrolysis requires.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 440
  • let the voltage do the work
Re: THE V.I.C.
« Reply #81 on: December 18, 2012, 14:06:54 pm »
  There are many ways to dissociate water non-electrolytically  but they don't give excess energy. Are you referring to electron avalanche/ionic collision? I don't know if it's possible to get energy directly from water except if you have discovered cold fusion.. can you give any insights on how this works?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: THE V.I.C.
« Reply #82 on: December 18, 2012, 14:14:39 pm »
Is just my theory here men, but i guess its all about the intensity of the field we can apply so not for how long. The faster the less time ions would take to discharge the zones (water capacitor ability to restrict amps)... But the stronger the pulse the gas output should increase exponentially.

It wouldn't be a surprise to me that if its really close related to the tech necessary for achieving cold fusion, for real.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 440
  • let the voltage do the work
Re: THE V.I.C.
« Reply #83 on: December 18, 2012, 14:24:07 pm »
If let's say contraty to photoelectric effect , NMR energy can accumulate then you can create cold fusion. So yes this is very much towards cold fusion..

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: THE V.I.C.
« Reply #84 on: December 18, 2012, 14:37:29 pm »
Why would be contrary to photoelectric?

I really like this discussion but i would ask you to create a thread to discuss it so we can focus on the vic here ok.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 440
  • let the voltage do the work
Re: THE V.I.C.
« Reply #85 on: December 18, 2012, 14:43:10 pm »
Yes ok the VIC is more important.. have you constructed it the way you're saying?

He doesn't include that two or more photon's energy can be added in his formula, the photoelectric effect expands for electromagnetic energy in general.





Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: THE V.I.C.
« Reply #86 on: December 18, 2012, 14:52:51 pm »
well two photon absorption is already proved concept from what i read..

Geon are you graduated in science? I'm going now to the third year physics bachelor course usp. i don't know how to say this in english  8)
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 15:18:54 pm by sebosfato »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: THE V.I.C.
« Reply #87 on: December 18, 2012, 16:03:03 pm »
You welcome, hope i can help more before the end of the world.  ;D

Actually is not precession, i meant energy level transitions such that rearrange electrons within the molecule.
 
I encourage you to keep trying, and learning, the diagrams stan provided is correct but incomplete and present polarities wrong. In the first thread here i describe how they should be wired correctly. AGAIN, its incomplete. For a circuit to work it must be closed always. There are different ways to do so...

Hi Seb, what do you think is missing in stans diagrams and connections?  Please explain with diagrams if neccessary. share your ideas so other people can experiment.