Author Topic: Piezo  (Read 4732 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Piezo
« on: July 04, 2009, 00:16:36 am »
Quote
Yes I do believe it states in the patent he made a ceramic mixture from the minerals that make piezo's.
In a certain combination.
You should be able to see that.

Well, sorry, but you believe incorrectly...there is an insulating "vitreous ceramic"...STOVE CLAY...but, NOWHERE does it say piezo....NOWHERE!

This is what it says about it....
"...Said center hollow tubular electrode carries water, and is separated from the outer cylindrical electrode by a porous ceramic vitreous material, and the inner surface of the outer cylindrical electrode exists a space to contain the water electrolysed."

"...The center tubular electrode is coated with a nickel alloy, and surrounded with a porous vitreous ceramic and a glass tube with the exception of the tip that faces the second electrode"


You are making shit up....if you know anything about piezos...they are NOT porous, in fact they are a seamless crystal matrix.
I deal in facts...not assumptions...get your facts straight

I have included the Puharich patent so u can see for yourself!



Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
Piezo
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2009, 01:02:02 am »
From Radiant_1  "Well, sorry, but you believe incorrectly...there is an insulating "vitreous ceramic"...STOVE CLAY...but, NOWHERE does it say piezo....NOWHERE!"

What is the vitreous ceramic made from.
If you look you will find a combination of materials.
All these materials are in the piezo family.
Vitreous ceramic material absorbs the water and most probably has piezo tendancies with the special combinations of materials its made from.
Did you read it thoroughly. he does not state piezo but if you research the materials are all in the piezo family.
Why do you suppose Puharich used a special combination of materials for the ceramics?
2:56 or so into Puharich Lecture #3 the chemical composition of the vitreous ceramic coating is enormously complex.

Really think we should not further clutter this thread.
Its funny why people in general cannot see through these patents because we in general have such a small focus on whats being said or read.
Thats why nothing has broke through on the patents we work on.

Please lets not discuss this further as you are being very disagreeable and appear not to be very open minded.
I'm a firm believer the vitreous ceramic material is piezo based by the combination of materials used to make it.

Sorry I should have said piezo materials in that first post.
Just PM me if you want to argue.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 01:29:28 am by komtek »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Piezo
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2009, 01:13:07 am »
I'm not arguing, I'm proving...but, believe w/e you want.
Fact of the mater is....I know how piezos work....and a porous material would be a poor piezo indeed. As for my mind...you have no idea!
You are spreading unsubstantiated claims...I would encourage YOU to read it thoroughly ;)
Good day sir....I said GOOD DAY!


P.S.

One more piece of logic to prove it....
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w152/Jdub6d9/Untitled-1-3.jpg)

Notice how the "vitreous ceramic" makes a seal between the outer steel housing and the inner nickel lined tube???(like the porcelain in a spark plug...ehhh?..ehh?)....well, a piezo expands and contracts...if that ceramic were piezo...it would break apart!!

Score 1more for logic ;)
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 01:41:37 am by Radiant_1 »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Piezo
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2009, 08:34:27 am »
Hi Gauss,

Well, test 1 is done.
I used an outertube of 15 cm /  6 inches long
Innertube  is like 18cm /  7 inches.

I have to say that NO vibration what so ever is noticed.....I tried destilled. I tried tap and yes, even some with NOAH.

I have the most soft spacers in the world......
I used a HP signal generator with a 50% duty. I can run this thing between zero and 50Mhz.
Hooked it up to a FET and a variable powersupply which can run from zero till 35V. Max 3 amps.

So, again. No vibration detected.

Question: Have you tried shorter type tubes? Or does it only work with the length you have tested?
Question: At what kind a frequency are the tubes vibrating?

Steve


Let's not  forget to take into account the size and shape of the entire water cavity.  
It is possible that this is also coming into play here  and not just the tubes.

To measure the frequency of the vibrations  you can download any of the many freeware and shareware spectrum analyzer programs and use a mic
attached yo your PC sound  card.  Most of the programs  will display a real time Fast Fourrier Transform (FFT).  And give you a frequency within a few Hz.

http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/win95/SPECTRUM_ANALYZERS/

« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 08:58:30 am by Goeytex »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Piezo
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2009, 09:52:50 am »
I'm not arguing, I'm proving...but, believe w/e you want.
Fact of the mater is....I know how piezos work....and a porous material would be a poor piezo indeed. As for my mind...you have no idea!
You are spreading unsubstantiated claims...I would encourage YOU to read it thoroughly ;)
Good day sir....I said GOOD DAY!


P.S.

One more piece of logic to prove it....
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w152/Jdub6d9/Untitled-1-3.jpg)

Notice how the "vitreous ceramic" makes a seal between the outer steel housing and the inner nickel lined tube???(like the porcelain in a spark plug...ehhh?..ehh?)....well, a piezo expands and contracts...if that ceramic were piezo...it would break apart!!

Score 1more for logic ;)



I have to agree with Radiant here.  To suggest  the ceramic  in Puharich's device is piezoceramic,  is purely speculative and a leap in logic in my opinion.  In the available online lectures as well as the patents ,  Puharich states the  ceramic is vitreous and porous which  would pretty much rule out  piezo.     If it were piezoceramic,  as the term is commonly understood, any legitimate researcher/inventor  would have said so in their patent.   Puharich never mentioned it anywhere. Neither did Meyer.   




Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Piezo
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2009, 11:37:00 am »
Meyer used quartz in his hydrogenlaser, but not sure why, guess as a non-conducting separation material for the electrodes.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 12:37:45 pm by Alan »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Piezo
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2009, 19:26:14 pm »
Quote
Meyer used quartz in his hydrogenlaser, but not sure why, guess as a non-conducting separation material for the electrodes.

He used a quartz tube to make the body of his hydrogen laser because of the intense heat made inside....quartz glass is one of the most heat resistant materials.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: Piezo
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2009, 12:39:17 pm »
Several times piezo bolts have been mentioned, what are those?