That's like asking the sun to dim a little cause it's too bright in the morning... 8^)
-j -----Original Message----- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]: Re: BAM Jones (please kindly try to make your posts shorter!) I was not thinking of H2 nanobubbles but of _dissoved_ H2 AND O2 (no bubbles at all, not even pico or femto). An easy way to eliminate my hypothesis would be to bubble the gases from an electrolyzer through untreated water and see if it flashes in the MWO in the same manner as your treated water. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "vortex" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:00 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: BAM > Michel, > > Still not getting your postings to vortex, but I have been > checking the archives periodically as my ISP filter removes about > 10% of any newsgroup messages anyway, and all of yours. > > These ISP filters are supposed to "learn" what constitutes "Spam," > but I am getting more of that than ever before... Ha! so much for > "artificial intelligence." > > My apology for the hasty original posting. The background is this: > there has been a lot of un-scientific anecdote recently about the > possibility of using treated-water in an internal combustion > engine - especially anecdote coming from Australia, where > marvelous claims have been made. > > If true, there are a few ways to explain what could be going on - > in addition to deliberate fraud - which seems unlikely given the > number of reports and lack of a financial motive. But in an effort > to find some initial or probative evidence of an anomaly, this > simple experiment materialized, and it would be a mistake to read > too much into it. The idea is that "nanobubbles" form and store > electrical charge. There are scientific citation in support of > part of this premise - given in the previous postings. These > nanobubbles could probably NOT store H2 itself - as you suggest - > due to its volatility and the fact that there was force > circulation due to the container being placed over a large magnet. > > The power supply for this simple experiment was a ubiquitous black > cube 6 v. DC wall transformer. It was drawing ~150 milliamps when > tested. I made no effort to datalog P-in. Perhaps someone better > equipped can do a better job with the details in the future, if > the nanobubble idea turns out to be tenable. Basically I was > trying to avoid water-splitting and just looking to see if there > was anything obvious or robust going-on with a long pre-charging > period of water, but using a Teflon-coated (hydrophobic) anode. > > There could be something worth further investigation here, and > hopefully the next time I post on this, it will be a little better > documented. However, the water in this situation never gets to the > point of supporting a flame, which is seen in one of the videos > from Australia. > > Furthermore, I do not think that the effect of explosive flashing, > following microwave irradiation, is due to retained H2 gas. And I > did make an effort to test 3% HOOH in the same way. I found that > peroxide is slower to boil-off than tap water, and never flashes. > > Tap water (eau d'municipal ?) normally boils instead of flashing > in the microwave, but one sample did flash to steam (one time out > in ten trials), whereas the treated water always flashed, never > giving it time to boil, and always flashes much faster than the > boiling away period of either tap water or HOOH. Once it was > instantaneous follwong the oven coming on. That is the limit of > this simple experiment. > > The "flash" itself is violent and totally clears the container, > but there is no assurance that all of the 1 ml of water per test, > was actually converted to vapor by phase-change - since as we > know - a flash of steam will always carry away some percentage of > atomized water, which has not undergone phase-change. > > But - the bottom line is that an intriguing possibility exists > here (charged nanobubbles) for expalin the prior reports - or > which could be put to use otherwise. Certainly it might help to > explain at least part of the anecdotes which have been circulating > about "waterfuel". > > Hope that is a little clearer. > > Jones > >
