Does anyone know what the reaction is , when theres no electrolyte?

[Login to see usernames]

your ignorance wont help you...

please film yourself while you burn your ph meter...

[Login to see usernames]

I mentioned HOH several years ago at ou.com and was met with complete silence.  Everyone is so sure it's HHO.

H+OH burns with three times the energy as gasoline, according to a 70's article in Scientific American.

[Login to see usernames]

your ignorance wont help you...

please film yourself while you burn your ph meter...

Thanks for you concern for my finances but you must be made aware that I have spent a lot of money in dealing with this technology in order to learn more about it so if the meter burns out that's just the cost of trying to learn something about this technology trust me I am use to it already. Is that why you wont get a differential probe for you are concerned it will burn out on you? You have to be willing to break a few eggs with this technology as we are dealing with a lot of unknowns.
I've spent months putting things together only to watch them burn up within a few minutes after being tested. It doesn't detour me as I learn from my mistakes as all I do is figure out what went wrong, fix the problem, and try again that is part of the scientific method. But I guess that is why you don't like to make use of the scientific method as it requires that you fail many times over until you get it right which a lot of times has a high cost to all of those failures, huh?

I could lay it all out on a line for you but what's the point as each time that I do you never acknowledge anything that you have been shown. In fact most of the time when I do lay it all out on the line for you you reject the science and or body of evidence outright with statements that have nothing supporting them other than they are an idea in your mind that you have chosen to cling too. So, again what's the point of showing you anything if your stance is always that of a Naysayer? Given the overwhelming body of evidence shown that lead towards this technology dealing with IONIZATION you still come in here and say "no it doesn't" without anything supporting your arguments for saying so. To date I have shown a number of reactions taking place in nature that show the original idea is supported by them and one of them even breaks the bonds of the water molecules with ionization and you still come in here and say, "It has nothing to do with ionization." The body of evidence that has been shown is stacked in my favor as they all support the idea that the water molecules are being broken down by way of ionization. Why are you so resistant to the body of evidence you are being shown as support for the idea especially when one of them actually does breaks the bonds of the water molecules with ionization? But my guess is that you missed that one, huh? The one where the bonds of the water molecules are actually being broken down by way of ionization as you never bothered to read anything posted fully, correct? Is this what you are learning in school to ignore supporting evidence and only make use of the scientific method as a last resort if it doesn't fit with how you think things work? If so you should be failing your classes as that is not how science is taught.

[Login to see usernames]

we are what we are.... those with pure heart will read thru my lines and see the true...

im sorry you want to win the prize of who´s who arrogant of the year... i know now why people have ignored you so hard... i wont waste more time reading or trying to see a reason behind your senseless theory, as a physiscist i indentify too much problems in your understanding of very simple concepts and i repudiate your arrogance more than your crappy theory... you can ignore me how much you want... lets see what others will do when i show it working... or the guy in the street i dont care... i dont ignored you when you came here talk about your video... i hope you have all the light on focus you want...

about burning things i just dont get money now to get another probe... it would not tell me what i had to know... nor will tell anyone... this is a false hope you created to yourself that having it you are closer than me or anybody else who have not.. you will never be better than anyone... you will never be close to science if you dont learn the simplest rules.... in nature survive whos stronger and the stronger will be the one with a crew.

i work with very pure water... but i also vary its purity during tests...

have you ever done the calculation of how many ions would be available thru the autoionization from water? do you know how much ions you got ? thats why i say its irrelevant to meyer magnitude of claims... or even horvath.... i did... if you would have a cavity having 1 liter of water in between plates how much ions would you got?

please do the math of your own theory before you claim its the right, or if you dont have the skills for doing it ask for help.. maybe help is all we need... what prevents you now from going there and make more turns and make it work?

my lazyness is the only thing between me and a working cell...

once my teacher of atomsic and molecular physics sub course, that when you ionize something you will create a current flow...not only because you steal that electron... because you created also motion of that specie, at the other electrode instantaneouly you will have another charge being displaced... thats why when you get for example a positive field it would steal one electron from the oxygen this electron will walk on the circuit... thats why i keep saying that is not simply about applying high voltage across the cell... there are other things playing that you dont get because you didnt folllow our ideas development like most here looking the big picture....
s
i had to come up with this theory out of nothing and yes a differential probe would tell me the same thing that my multimeter told me but i can read even if i cannot see... my multimeter has max and min measurements dc+ac so i´m good with it...

[Login to see usernames]

It is strange when people messing with this stuff run out of ideas. Hehehe. 

Sebosfato is on the right track. Stop the current!. 

[Login to see usernames]

[/quote]

yes 



I shouldve just put pen to paper instead of searching

*Ignoring neutrons to make it less clutter

POSITIVE plate  < OH- anion is attracted (9p 10e)      = 2 e taken by Postive plate
                           O monatomic released  (8p 8e)
                           H+ cation repelled        (1p)

NEGATIVE plate < H3O+ cation is attracted (11p 10e)     = 1 e  given to H+ from OH-, 1e given to H+from H3O+
                           H+ monatomic released  (1p 1e)
                           H2O formed                   (10p 10e)

this is similar to what george wiseman has with sodium hydroxide but with out sodium Hydroxide....., I couldnt find any break down formula any where of straight water
[/quote]


this is water between 2 plates with electon exchange , NOT a sample of water self ionising , say in a glass

got to raise the question ,
HOW did they reach the theory of self ionization ?
a sample of water with tin foil strip galvanic sensor ?
is it PURELY chalk board theory ?
is it pH levels ?
did  the sample/s they use respond to the earths mag polarity ?


Im skeptical of patent info , Dad Garretts carb is too small to make any amount of useful gas .
I dont beleive at all that archie blue used aluminium plates in his cell , or that Pachecos cell was like the patent description , or that Horvath cell is anything like the patent , or Puharichs cell ,  so when I look at SM patent info , I dont see why he would release accurrate drawings and circuits .
and I dont beleive H Anderson has dangerous radioactive material on board , they called him "the King of the ion"

everyone has got to have a view on what they think is happening between the 2 plates . In the SM video it shows rapid production of gas and he fills it with tap water .
From what we can see there is only 2 plates in each cell

it has to be considered that water has its own natural properties before and during the process
either those natural properties are over ridden by the process or the properties are a part of the process or the properties are amplified to some degree

according to science , water self ionizes , THEY say 2H2O = OH- and H3O+
they are the ones who conjure up these formulas and we stick to them

Im skeptical of science as much as Im skeptical of religion  .  theres too many examples of inventors producing H gas from water that I just see science is road blocking

so I see peoples personal views on sites like this as being more valid and holding more value

[Login to see usernames]

i think the only where i think i see stan show his production is when the buggy first run... other demosntrations i saw of him were very small gas production,,,

the question would be what cause that autoionization.... i guess is decurrence of natural background radiation... but there are some theories about it,.. the point is water is a matrix and this ions have to be equidistant from each other...

if you get their mean distance and charge and calculate you get the voltage that holds them equidistant,,

there is a discussion here in the forum about it somewhere in the past...

at the university i did a course on tecnology of fuell  cell and there was my first contact with a polarization curve.... there i understood more how those ions behave,,,you could teach yourself on a goodbook about it

[Login to see usernames]

(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/2015-08-19_130012_zps1ayyxeyv.png)
http://sciexplorer.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/lightning-part-3-lightning-bolt.html

The air under a thunderstorm is very humid. Ionized hydrogen atoms split apart from from water vapour contribute red to the glow, so that ionized humid air glows violet. These are not my words but theirs and they say the hydrogen atoms split apart from water by way of ionization.

Is this clear enough for all of you! What more do you need?

And this information was shared with me from another person on the hereticalbuilders forum called doobie as he took the time to look for what I was talking about actually taking place in nature and, I might add, found it also.

"Molecules can be separated by taking the electrons away from them." ~ excite the electrons and take them away is the core science. This is my original idea and when I went looking for things like this taking place in nature I found them and shared what I found with everyone on this forum but these finds are rejected due to the man who's word is good as gold sebosfato. I clearly showed that a plant breaks down the water molecules in such a manor and again these are not my words but the words of others explaining how photosynthesis works. Like I said the evidence supporting what I am saying is overwhelming. But here on this forum all of this evidence is treated as something freely given has no value.

I show voltages being applied to the exciter array that no one has ever shown before and I emphasis the word shown as sebosfato has never shown what voltages he is placing on his exciter array as it is only his words which again are taken to be good as gold without any proof backing his words up. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever shown voltages this high being applied to the WFC other than myself. Not Max Miller, Outlawstc, Russ Griess, Don Gable, Sebosfato, and the list goes on and on and the only way to show this is with an oscilloscope like that of Outlawstc and Max Miller or with a set of differential probes. 8.8kv of potential difference is what I showed and again I have not seen anyone to this date showing voltages that high being placed on their WFC's as I have shown all of you. And again what are the working voltages of the exciter array according to Stanley A. Meyer in his patents? 10-20kv correct? I showed my work and all of this disdain is what I get for my efforts in doing so. If you have to get a differential probe to be able to show your work then get it and do so once you have it as your words are not as good as gold as I require proof just like all of you said I had to do when I showed my work to all of you.

From my point of view you don't want this technology in spite of how much you all say you do as you never demand proof from those coming at you with just their words to back up what they say. Prove me wrong and start demanding that people show you proof of what they are telling you.

Shalom,
TGS