Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:55:18 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> Actually, the frequencies that one might expect lie halfway between >> the 27.2 >> >>multiples. >>e.g. >> >>13.6 eV >>40.8 eV >>68.0 eV etc. >> >> >> >Interesting post Robin. I'm reminded of the 3rd and 5th order harmonics >used by Keeley. Does anybody know if BLP is using multiple harmonics in >the electrical energy used to stimulate hydrino production? Not that I am aware of. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:In reply to thomas malloy's message of Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:11:29 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:40 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an LENR reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable anomolus heat out put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put gas into the LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for "proof"? I would say that it would be very interesting, but would want to know a few more details. Regards, OK, what details? 1) Is this real or hypothetical? There are plenty of researchers who have working LENR cells. My thought experiment involves adding some hydrinos to the water 2) What constitutes the Hydrino generator? One built according to Randall's specifications. 3) Is there normal Hydrogen &/or Oxygen (other?) in the gas from it? My understanding is that Randall's plasma is just hydrogen 4) What percentage improvement do you get from the LENR generator? That's the point of the proposed experiment 5) Is there a paper/web site describing the setup? You're looking at it 6) What percentage excess energy were you getting from the LENR experiment prior to adding gas from the generator? That's a question for the experimenter. 7) As many facts as are available. :) Regards, --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Actually, the frequencies that one might expect lie halfway between the 27.2 multiples. e.g. 13.6 eV 40.8 eV 68.0 eV etc. Interesting post Robin. I'm reminded of the 3rd and 5th order harmonics used by Keeley. Does anybody know if BLP is using multiple harmonics in the electrical energy used to stimulate hydrino production? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
just bumped into these, seems like hours and hours of interviews of people like stephen meyer, jeane manning, dale pond, timothy thrapp, george wiseman (isnt he one of the proponents of browns gas?) Water Fuel Museum Vol.2 - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/waterfuel2007 Water Fuel Museum Vol.3 - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kentuckywaterfuelmuseum Water Fuel Museum Vol.4 - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kywaterfuelmuseum On 23/04/2008, Esa Ruoho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > whats the take on the ravi raju replication of the dave lawton replication > of stanley meyer's stuff? > is it really true that the popular consensus is that bob boyce's > electrolyzer is better at extracting HHO than stanley meyer's tube system > (i hear meyer also switched to plates just like bob boyce -- also that > timothy thrapp has replicated the bob boyce electrolyzer).. > > > On 23/04/2008, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > > > In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:40 -0500 > > > (CDT): > > > Hi, > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an > > > > > LENR reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable > > > > > anomolus heat > > > > > out put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put > > > > > gas into > > > > > the LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for > > > > > "proof"? > > > > > > > > > > > > I would say that it would be very interesting, but would want to know > > > a few more > > > details. > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > OK, what details? > > > > > > --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- > > http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- > > > > > > > -- > -- > we are all astronauts on board the spaceship earth. there are no > passengers, only crew. > - r. buckminster fuller -- -- we are all astronauts on board the spaceship earth. there are no passengers, only crew. - r. buckminster fuller
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
whats the take on the ravi raju replication of the dave lawton replication of stanley meyer's stuff? is it really true that the popular consensus is that bob boyce's electrolyzer is better at extracting HHO than stanley meyer's tube system (i hear meyer also switched to plates just like bob boyce -- also that timothy thrapp has replicated the bob boyce electrolyzer).. On 23/04/2008, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:40 -0500 > > (CDT): > > Hi, > > [snip] > > > > > > > Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an > > > > LENR reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable anomolus > > > > heat > > > > out put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put gas > > > > into > > > > the LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for > > > > "proof"? > > > > > > > > > I would say that it would be very interesting, but would want to know a > > few more > > details. > > Regards, > > > > > OK, what details? > > > --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- > http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- > > -- -- we are all astronauts on board the spaceship earth. there are no passengers, only crew. - r. buckminster fuller
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:11:29 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:40 -0500 (CDT): >>Hi, >>[snip] >> >> Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an LENR reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable anomolus heat out put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put gas into the LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for "proof"? >> >>I would say that it would be very interesting, but would want to know a few >>more >>details. >>Regards, >> >> >OK, what details? 1) Is this real or hypothetical? 2) What constitutes the Hydrino generator? 3) Is there normal Hydrogen &/or Oxygen (other?) in the gas from it? 4) What percentage improvement do you get from the LENR generator? 5) Is there a paper/web site describing the setup? 6) What percentage excess energy were you getting from the LENR experiment prior to adding gas from the generator? 7) As many facts as are available. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:40 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an LENR reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable anomolus heat out put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put gas into the LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for "proof"? I would say that it would be very interesting, but would want to know a few more details. Regards, OK, what details? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >In a high voltage plasma, EUV can be be expected >without hydrinos, but there are specific spectra which >are multiples of 27.2 eV which are the important clue, >according to Mills' CQM theory; and these energy >levels should stand out very clearly in hydrino >situations. Actually, the frequencies that one might expect lie halfway between the 27.2 multiples. e.g. 13.6 eV 40.8 eV 68.0 eV etc. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
--- In further reply to Robin van Spaandonk's reply
to Thomas Malloy's message:
Yes, there is a "signature" for hydrino activity, and
it is EUV radiation in particular spectra.
EUV is not expected in electrolysis or combustion, nor
is it evident visually like light photons (which would
tend to mask it). Finding EUV requires a special
photocell, placed in a cell closed to the reaction
(using a "pinhole") as the radiation will not go
through a "window" of any kind. It is more like gamma
radiation, but less penetrating.
Extreme ultraviolet light is not seen in chemical
processes; and if it occurs robustly, then that would
be an excellent clue.
In a high voltage plasma, EUV can be be expected
without hydrinos, but there are specific spectra which
are multiples of 27.2 eV which are the important clue,
according to Mills' CQM theory; and these energy
levels should stand out very clearly in hydrino
situations.
However, since the hydrino (deuterino) is one of the
possible explanations for LENR itself, or more like a
partial explanation (in the sense that it could be
precursor-to an actual nuclear reaction) then it would
not necessarily differentiate the two classes, which I
believe was the intent of the original question.
Which brings up one very important point which I have
never seen addressed before wrt deuterium fusion.
We (including the mainstream) know that the Farnsworth
Fusor produces lots of neutrons at a fraction of the
normal threshold energy for spallation or fusion, even
though it is far from breakeven.
...so one wonders if EUV is present there (Fusor), and
to what degree, and in what energy levels ?
Mills, or BLP, or the CQM theory, could take a giant
step towards mainstream credibility, possibly
exceeding *everything* he has done in his prior 19
years of experiment (and by a very wide margin in the
eyes of the mainstream) IF he were to look for, and to
find his signature spectra of EUV coming from an
operating Fusor.
This would be HUGE, and IMHO it would open the
floodgates of funding. At his burn-rate, this could be
important. He must know this, however, and possibly
has tried and failed to find EUV there...
Which does not disprove anything. But if he has not
looked for it, I would urge Mike or anyone "who has
his ear" to strongly encourage him to do so...
... (even though he in well-known to have this strong
and irrational aversion to LENR, of the P&F
variety)... but, it should be noted that the Fusor is
technically NOT a facet of LENR, but has heretofore
been assumed to be a fact of hot fusion (even if
called "warm" fusion).
Now is the time, Randy ... "saddle up" ... ever since
the SPAWAR results, even though they are not
unquestioned, they have raised the credibility level
of LENR above the hydrino, in everyone's eyes
(mainstream of physics) at least those who will take a
dispassionate look at the evidence for both, and it is
time for a competitive response ...
Jones
("saddle up" is a bit of trivia for you cinema fans,
who may have seen the "Michael Clayton" movie and not
grasped the metaphor of the tree horses)
> Hi,
> Well,let me put it another way. if someone were
> attempting to get an LENR reactor to work. Let's
> suppose that it worked, measurable anomalous heat
out
> put. Then they built a hydrino generator and bubbled
> the out put gas into the LENR cell, and it worked
> measurably better. How would that be for "proof"?
> I would say that it would be very interesting, but
> would want to know a few more
> details.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:40 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >>Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an LENR >>reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable anomolus heat out >>put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put gas into the >>LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for "proof"? I would say that it would be very interesting, but would want to know a few more details. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:30:39 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to MAJ Todd Hathaway's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:19:29 -0700 reinterpreting ordinary electrolysis. There must be some additional energy source involved that is not normally accounted for, and determining exactly what that energy source is, is the real riddle. My personal bet is on some form of CF (most likely Hydrino based). Hum, so can you prove the existance of hydrinos? At the moment I personally cannot. However I said "most likely", which implies still some uncertainty. Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an LENR reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable anomolus heat out put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put gas into the LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for "proof"? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:30:39 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>In reply to MAJ Todd Hathaway's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:19:29 -0700 >> >>reinterpreting ordinary electrolysis. There must be some additional energy >>source involved that is not normally accounted for, and determining exactly >>what >>that energy source is, is the real riddle. >> >>My personal bet is on some form of CF (most likely Hydrino based). >> >> >Hum, so can you prove the existance of hydrinos? At the moment I personally cannot. However I said "most likely", which implies still some uncertainty. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
Here is a video of what is very likely (my opinion) to be overunity hydrogen production from Ron Stiffler. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pJEz0YGlQ Dr Stiffler has made no claims of the sort, but the numbers speak for themself in the context of the gas being evolved- and are certainly a bit 'unusual' shall we say, fi nothing else: less than one milliamp of current and RF in the MHz range, as the input - such as in the Kanzius experiment but without the need for salt water. Jones
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to MAJ Todd Hathaway's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:19:29 -0700 reinterpreting ordinary electrolysis. There must be some additional energy source involved that is not normally accounted for, and determining exactly what that energy source is, is the real riddle. My personal bet is on some form of CF (most likely Hydrino based). Hum, so can you prove the existance of hydrinos? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
MAJ Todd Hathaway wrote: This outlines some of the theory behind hydroxy gas production in the Bob Boyce resonance drive systems we are building, similar to the Stanley Meyer's system as described below: AFAIK, the best Boyce Electrolyzers approach the theoretical efficiency of transforming electrical energy into hydrogen. This means no over unity energy production. If you can demonstrate this statement to be incorrect, Sterling Allen wants to talk to you. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
Apologies to Maj Hathaway who apparently started the original posting to this thread, which for some reason I did not receive, but read it just now in the archives. I suspect that he was actually present at the Jarboe event in Maryland, and can fill us in on anything which was demonstrated there, which may have looked exciting. But yet I am a bit surprised, going back to the original, that he seems to be promoting Stanley Meyers Jones
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
--- Robin wrote: > This is the key faulty assumption. It is not 1 V. It is 1.48 V (and that is per hydrogen atom, not per molecule). Hence the energy input is at least 2 x 1.48 x 96.5 kJ = 285 kJ, i.e. just what you get out of burning it. Sorry, no free lunch. Yes, although you can get a few bubbles on the cathode at lower voltage, it is not significant for commercial use. Even at 1.48 volts per plate, the rate of H2 evolution (current draw) is too slow for practical use- thus the most efficient commercial units operate at closer to 2 volts and are no more than 75% efficient. Given that there is a fairly large market for H2 "on demand" now, if simple DC electrolysis could really be done at any lower voltage, or with improved yield by using any simple method such as high voltage, then it already "should have been" done by these claimants in order to meet this high demand for H2 on demand, for welding etc. ... except for the caveat which Robin mentions, of the occasional - anecdotal situation. Indeed, there are many glimmers of techniques which appear to do much better than Faradaic but not "on demand" nor in a strict scientific setting; and which most often do not use low voltage DC at all AFAIK there is no convincing evidence that Stanley Meyers ever accomplished any anomaly at all. Those who actually witnessed his dune buggy conversion (and there are several on Vortex who did witness it in person) agree that yes it would run for about 20 minutes (but no more) on self-generated water splitting. This period of apparent self-power is (not uncoincidentally) about the maximum amount of time it takes to burn all the residual hydrocarbons out of an old carburetor, and/or the crankcase oil film off the cylinder walls of the notoriously leaky VW boxer engine. If there are real anomalies out there, and IMHO there are some bona fide anomalies which are at least "not yet disproved", then it is from those who may have found a way, as Robin mentions to use the redundant ground states of hydrogen, especially a plasma, or else have found a way to increase the probability of QM tunneling, or other methods which go beyond surface chemistry. There was a gathering this past week in Maryland of hydro-booster enthusiasts, but none of the forums which I have been monitoring for the past decade have made any announcements which indicate that any real anomaly was achieved or demonstrated there. Hydro-boosting with a small amount of brown's gas, hydroxy or whatever silly name you want to pin on it - is FACT, not fiction, but that is a long, long way from self-power. If you want to start doing water-fuel experiments based on the work of a paranoid nut-case inventor, then you will have much better success building on Paul Pantone's GEET system, as the French have done, than on anything Meyer ever did. Jones
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to MAJ Todd Hathaway's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >If it is assumed that the hydrogen is produced by passing 1 amp of current for >96,494 seconds (1 Faraday = 96,494 coulombs) at 1 volt, then the energy needed >is ~96.5 kJ. That same 1 gram of H2 is capable of releasing 285kJ during the >combustion process with oxygen. This is the key faulty assumption. It is not 1 V. It is 1.48 V (and that is per hydrogen atom, not per molecule). Hence the energy input is at least 2 x 1.48 x 96.5 kJ = 285 kJ, i.e. just what you get out of burning it. Sorry, no free lunch. Everyone I have met that looks at this issue seems to be under the false impression that the "secret" is something "obvious". It isn't. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that something extraordinary sometimes happens with this type of cell, but whatever it is, it is not as trivial as reinterpreting ordinary electrolysis. There must be some additional energy source involved that is not normally accounted for, and determining exactly what that energy source is, is the real riddle. My personal bet is on some form of CF (most likely Hydrino based). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
Off hand I have no idea if the apparatus alluded to here works, but there are a few glitches in the post which are worth pointing out. MAJ Todd Hathaway wrote: This outlines some of the theory behind hydroxy gas production in the Bob Boyce resonance drive systems we are building, similar to the Stanley Meyer's system as described below: The electrolysis process is not dependent on energy. Yes it is. You must overcome the binding *energy* of the H, the H, and the O. When you "burn" them back to water, the energy you get back is that binding energy. From Arrhenius theory, molecules in solution dissociate into ions and the ions are collected at the electrode. No energy is required for ionic dissociation and electrolysis processes are so efficient that they are used to measure current. When the Arrhenius theory is applied to the dissociation of water, the key requirement to produce 1 mole (~1 gram) of hydrogen is that 1 Faraday of electricity flows. However, you can't just ignore the voltage, or assume you can set it to whatever you want. Voltage must be high enough to overcome the binding energy of the water molecules, or your electrolysis cell won't go. Current is *a* key requirement. Voltage is *another* key requirement. If it is assumed that the hydrogen is produced by passing 1 amp of current for 96,494 seconds (1 Faraday = 96,494 coulombs) at 1 volt, then the energy needed is ~96.5 kJ. That same 1 gram of H2 is capable of releasing 285kJ during the combustion process with oxygen. The process of producing hydrogen from water usually requires an electrolyte to produce it in quantities. Polarization occurs at the electrodes with hydrogen collecting there. A number of methods are known for improving the efficiency of the process. In theory the process can be made energy efficient The term "energy efficient" has not been defined. What do you mean by it? without a breach of any of the laws of thermodynamics. If you're trying to say you can split water for less energy cost than what you get back when you recombine the hydrogen and oxygen, then the claim that you can do it without violating the laws of thermodynamics is flatly false: It breaks the first law, which is conservation of total energy. It also breaks the second law, which says free (usable) energy must decrease. Whether it's *possible* is something else, to be determined by experiment, but please don't claim you can do it without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Enough for now; I have no further comments on the text so I'm snipping it off here, as per the house rules. [snip]
[Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
This outlines some of the theory behind hydroxy gas production in the Bob Boyce resonance drive systems we are building, similar to the Stanley Meyer's system as described below: The electrolysis process is not dependent on energy. From Arrhenius theory, molecules in solution dissociate into ions and the ions are collected at the electrode. No energy is required for ionic dissociation and electrolysis processes are so efficient that they are used to measure current. When the Arrhenius theory is applied to the dissociation of water, the key requirement to produce 1 mole (~1 gram) of hydrogen is that 1 Faraday of electricity flows. If it is assumed that the hydrogen is produced by passing 1 amp of current for 96,494 seconds (1 Faraday = 96,494 coulombs) at 1 volt, then the energy needed is ~96.5 kJ. That same 1 gram of H2 is capable of releasing 285kJ during the combustion process with oxygen. The process of producing hydrogen from water usually requires an electrolyte to produce it in quantities. Polarization occurs at the electrodes with hydrogen collecting there. A number of methods are known for improving the efficiency of the process. In theory the process can be made energy efficient without a breach of any of the laws of thermodynamics. Meyer has obviously discovered some method of collecting the hydrogen different from the traditional methods. In ordinary water a small amount of the water dissociates into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. These ions are immediately hydrated. The amount dissociating depends on the purity of the water and in very pure water is equal to 1 part in 10 million (10^-7), or a pH of 7. Normally ordinary water is described as non-conducting. The process has never been fully explained. Hydrogen and hydroxyl ions are constantly being created and then decaying back to water, but there is always a balance between the numbers ionized and the numbers in solution. Under normal electrolysis these ions can be swept to electrodes and neutralized with the opposite charge. Hydrogen and oxygen can be produced. However, with conventional circuits, the energy used in collecting the hydrogen is greater than the energy that is available from the hydrogen. Meyer has utilized a novel electronic circuit which produces high voltages but prevents currents from flowing. This circuit is similar to a classical forced oscillation circuit where charge q can go to infinity. The power to this circuit is coming from an alternator which is across a stainless steel capacitor with water between the plates. The dielectric water itself provides the charge to charge up the capicator and create the high voltage. This charge comes from the hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. The more charge that flows the more the voltage builds up and the more ions are pulled out of solution. The circuit has a high frequency of the order of five kilohertz superimposed through the windings of the field coils. In addition, the circuit is half-wave rectified to allow the capacitor to discharge. On the charging up side the ions are pulled out of the dielectric and moved towards the metal electrodes. On the discharging side they may go back into solution. The circuit succeeds in increasing briefly the number of ions which are out of solution. A portion of these ions are able to form hydrogen and oxygen by normal electrolysis type processes. The hydrogen and oxygen bubble to the surface. The circuit is novel in that it is a form of electrolysis but there is no need for any net current to flow. While the voltage applied is zero, the ionized charges are able to recombine without flowing around the circuit and using energy. Theoretically, there is no reason why the process cannot be totally efficient in producing hydrogen and oxygen. The efficiency depends on the tuning frequency of the LC circuit and having this balanced with the mobility of the ions and the spacing between the plates. There may also be a need to allow a definite relaxation time after each pulse, to increase the period in which the ionized charges may recombine and hydrogen and oxygen may be collected. The process does not defy the laws of thermodynamics in that the energy comes from the energy of dissociation of the molecules. A portion on the molecules are dissociating and associating automatically all the time. In the normal course of events, this does not change the energy of the water. This process interrupts this cycle and allows a person to form water in the stable state of diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. The process is not dissimilar to the vaporization of water which takes place naturally. The water forms clouds, then rain. Rivers flow and energy is extracted from the rivers. The difference is that it is possible to carry out the cycle under laboratory type conditions or industrial type conditions and extract the energy in the form of hydrogen. By developing a process to utilize the hydrogen ions directly
