[Vo]: Re: Scam or no?

[Jones Beene]

Let's say they were electrolyzing 5 gallons "per hour," instead of "per 
minute" - The transit time from reactor to cylinder is in milliseconds, so even if 
the capacitance is not stable for much longer - it could somehow be 
effective. 


What I was referring to in that somewhat cryptic reference is the 
hypothesis that water-splitting may NOT be occurring per se. Technically 
this situation may NOT be electrolysis at all, in the sense of water 
being split into H2 and O2.

Instead the power source would be the "exploding water capacitor."

This has been mentioned here several times as an alternative hypothesis 
for certain water fuel claims - like that of Stanley Meyer (if that were 
to be trusted), and it does not rule out other "new physics" 
contributions to the anomalous energy (hydrino etc). It does rule out 
steam, as opposed to water mist, since steam has too low a dielectric 
constant (~1, as opposed to 80 for pure water).

If this kind of water-capacitor were to be "exploded" - to use the 
direct analogy to an exploding electrolytic capacitor then the question 
arises as to how much energy is available from this, compared with 
gasoline combustion.

We can assume that the capacitance is unbalanced and the the charge 
carrier is positive - since only a positive charge is available from an 
auto alternator (negative is ground). This means that the charge must be 
"shielded" and we know that water, even as a mist favors a hexagonal 
structure - which can be a natural shield.

If six water molecules were used to shield an electron "hole," then that 
compound ion has a molecular weight of 6x18 = 106 and if this ion were 
to collapse in a capacitor-like situation - it would probably attract 
the needed electron from the ubiquitous Dirac epo-field 
(electron-postitron pairs) which is the QM "virtual foam" and a proven 
resource in quantum mechanics. At that point the energy available might 
not be the full annihilation energy, but instead the electron-positron 
ionization potential, or 6.8 eV per 106 a.m.u. Doesn't sound like enough.

Gasoline combustion resulting in CO2 gives more apparent energy per amu 
- ostensibly - until you realize that for every Oxygen molecule which is 
used, there must be 4 nitrogen molecules (since that is the ratio of 
air), ergo the net energy of gasoline, burned in air is actually less 
per net amu (atomic mass unit) of the exhaust constituents (arguably) 
then is the exploding water-fuel capacitor, in this grossly 
oversimplified comparison.

This methodology assumes that this "natural" fuel, which is little more 
then ionized water mist, is the conduit for coherence of 
electron-positron pairs in much higher QM probability than normal.

It is still troubling that this has situation not been seen by 
mainstream science before now - if it has any validity - and that such a 
very high COP could have gone undetected for so long...

...unless, of course, the tropical hurricane and other electrical storms 
provides some of that evidence and hidden proof -- from mother-nature 
herself.

Jones

BTW - the last paragraph from this blog - or all of it really, is where 
Zigouras got the idea - basically it is an improvement of SA Meyer:

http://blog.waterforfuel.com/search.aspx?q=Zigouras