E-Cat World HHO Experiment/Crowdfunding Proposal [Update: Fundraising Goal Achieved]

I’m pleased to post a proposed experiment sent to me by Alan Smith, the Managing Director of London-based startup Leap Forward Laboratory, Ltd. Leap Forward Lab will move into a permanent home in late summer, but meanwhile Alan has the space and facilities required for this in his own workshop. Alan has had a wide range of experience in the manufacturing and engineering professions — see his LinkedIn profile for details.

What we are really trying to find out here is if there is some kind of unconventional reaction taking place when HHO gas is combined with a catalyzer, as has been suggested a number of experimenters. We are simply trying to get an answer one way or another here.

Alan’s proposal is to carry out an experiment to examine the comparative heat output of two HHO systems, one with simple combustion (naked flame) and the other using catalytic recombination. The proposal is embedded below, along with a download link.

Alan will carry out the proposed experiment if we can raise $500 by April 1, 2014 to cover the cost of the equipment he will need for the experiment, so this will be a crowdfunded project.

If you want to support this effort, please send a contribution via Paypal to me, Frank Acland, at [email protected] If we raise the the total funds needed by April 1, Alan will carry out the experiment. If the fundraising goal is not met by that time, all donations will be refunded, and the experiment will not go forward.

As you will see in the document, Alan is asking for comments on the proposed experiment, and will review all ideas carefully — but will make the final decision on how the experiment will be carried out.

There is a section in the E-Cat World Forum dedicated to the discussion of this project, where Alan will provide updates of progress, and post videos and data. ECW readers are encouraged to participate in the forum to ask questions, provide input, etc. I will provide updates about fundraising progress in the forum space.

Lfl Experiment Proposal HHO by ecatworld

UPDATE: (Feb 27th) I’m pleased to announce that totaling donations actually received, and pledges made here, we have reached the fundraising goal for Alan Smith’s experiment of $500. So far, $405 had been received, and an additional $150 has been pledged and not yet received. I propose that any excess funds received be sent to Alan to cover incidental expenses.

Many thanks to all who have supported this project!

  • mecatfish

    Ambient temperature must be controlled. Relative humidity must be controlled if the water in the tank is exposed to air. Starting temperature of the HHO generator must be the same for both experiments. Barometric pressure should also at least be recorded.
    Also: Save some HHO at the end of the experiment to cook some bacon on the catalyst. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • mecatfish

    Ambient temperature must be controlled. Relative humidity must be controlled if the water in the tank is exposed to air. Starting temperature of the HHO generator must be the same for both experiments. Barometric pressure should also at least be recorded.
    Also: Save some HHO at the end of the experiment to cook some bacon on the catalyst. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I don’t use PayPal on principle. If you want to know why, look here:

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/follow/general-updates/362-are-we-feeling-the-heat

    Isn’t there another option?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I don’t use PayPal on principle. If you want to know why, look here:

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/follow/general-updates/362-are-we-feeling-the-heat

    Isn’t there another option?

  • georgehants

    Frank, you can put me down for $50. please send invoice to my e-mail.
    If I can ask our qualified scientists on page, why our University’s and establishment science with their billions of dollars and thousands of students etc. are not doing, or already done such a simple and important experiment.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, George — I have your email, so will do.

  • Bruce Williams

    Frank, you can put me down for a 50$ contribution too. I suggest you wait to see how much is offered, ie if the requested 500$ is reached before we pay, that will save effort if the full amount is not pledged.

    • ecatworld

      Thanks, Bruce — I will keep track of pledges/offers like yours, as well as actual donations, and inform everyone when the $500 mark is hit.

  • Bruce Williams

    Frank, you can put me down for a 50$ contribution too. I suggest you wait to see how much is offered, ie if the requested 500$ is reached before we pay, that will save effort if the full amount is not pledged.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, Bruce — I will keep track of pledges/offers like yours, as well as actual donations, and inform everyone when the $500 mark is hit.

  • Gerard McEk

    Please read my comment in the original thread. An electrolysis micro welder unit can be used for this test to generate the gas in a stable manner. That includes also the torch needed to ensure optimal mixing and burning of the gas. If hydrogen causes LENR and the high temperature of the catalyst, then Oxygen can be omitted in the comparative test, but I am sure not much will happen. The question is if the gas burns (with Oxygen) more efficiently with the catalyst and if also LENR takes place. I am not very convinced that LENR will take place so I will not contribute.

    • georgehants

      Gerard McEk, are you saying that as most of science does not believe in Cold Fusion, they are right not to do any competent experiments and Research to prove themselves correct, but just rely on “opinion”.

      • Gerard McEk

        Not at all, I am a great believer in CF, but this test does not look like anything the CF scientists are doing. I am willing to contribute to CF research. I have already decided that if I would earn millions with the fantasy book I am going to publish, I will use a great deal of that money for CF research. (My wife does no know that yet…).

        • georgehants

          Gerard. Ha well done, hope you make a fortune,
          You must remember though that a few years ago Cold Fusion with just Mr. Rossi et al looked very dodgy.
          Only the perseverance of those few true Rebel scientists, continuing to experiment with belief and determination has led to the position today.
          Imagine if they too had followed “expert opinion” and given up.

        • Justin Church

          Well sir, enlighten us on what the CF scientists are doing?

          Small amounts of Hydrogen gas inside a reactor core of a nano particle metal like Nickel or Palladium? H-Cat CHECK Nanotech is used to place the noble metals into the catalytic converters of automobiles so we may already have access to the magical fairy dust some of these corporate goons claim to have proprietary rights too. I can produce and input small amounts of H2 on demand as well, this isn’t just about HHO on demand.

          Heavy Water high voltage alkaline electrolysis cell using Palladium Electrodes? Sounds like an expensive hho electrolysis cell to me?

          Even the electrical pulses to the reactors core can be replicated using very simple hho garage technology and circuits..

          So again what is it about the professional grade CF experiments is different? What are they doing that we cannot do?

          • Gerard McEk

            Justin, I am not sure you have read what these science people do in details, but what I read is that the circumstances where LENR seems to take place requires a ‘fully loaded’ pure Hydrogen atmosphere around the nano (nickel) material. This loading requires full evacuation of the active material and heating it so all gasses are removed, probably under heated conditions and preferably more than a day with sophisticated vacuum equipment. If you do not do that, then LENR is very unlikely to happen. That is the main reason that I do not think you will find any evidence of LENR in this test. Further it seems necessary that you introduce some special catalyzer. Rossi uses possibly Beta (fast electrons) emitting (radioactive) material to initiate LENR. Others use high currents (Thunder Fusion and Black Light Power) or plasma’s (Brillouin, Defkalion).
            However, you may have found a simpler solution, so continue and prove it. Success!

          • Justin Church

            Its just as easy to switch over to H2 if need be. A automotive catalytic converter can be easily be modified to to have a vacuum pulled on it. On demand atmospheric pressure is where we are starting these experiments. All of us are too wet behind the ears to be pressurizing and pulling vacuums on these systems. I still don’t see anything the corporate boys are doing that I cannot do with my equipment. I only need to know the how and why and we can certainly adjust parameters.

    • ecatworld

      Thanks, Gerard — I don’t want anyone to feel any kind of obligation or expectation to contribute to this project. It just depends one’s interests and curiosity.

  • Gerard McEk

    Please read my comment in the original thread. An electrolysis micro welder unit can be used for this test to generate the gas in a stable manner. That includes also the torch needed to ensure optimal mixing and burning of the gas. If hydrogen causes LENR and the high temperature of the catalyst, then Oxygen can be omitted in the comparative test, but I am sure not much will happen. The question is if the gas burns (with Oxygen) more efficiently with the catalyst and if also LENR takes place. I am not very convinced that LENR will take place so I will not contribute.

    • georgehants

      Gerard McEk, are you saying that as most of science does not believe in Cold Fusion, they are right not to do any competent experiments and Research to prove themselves correct, but just rely on “opinion”.

      • Gerard McEk

        Not at all, I am a great believer in CF, but this test does not look like anything the CF scientists are doing. I am willing to contribute to CF research. I have already decided that if I would earn millions with the fantasy book I am going to publish, I will use a great deal of that money for CF research. (My wife does no know that yet…).

        • georgehants

          Gerard. Ha well done, hope you make a fortune,
          You must remember though that a few years ago Cold Fusion with just Mr. Rossi et al looked very dodgy.
          Only the perseverance of those few true Rebel scientists, continuing to experiment with belief and determination has led to the position today.
          Imagine if they too had followed “expert opinion” and given up.

        • Justin Church

          Well sir, enlighten us on what the CF scientists are doing?

          Small amounts of Hydrogen gas inside a reactor core of a nano particle metal like Nickel or Palladium? H-Cat CHECK Nanotech is used to place the noble metals into the catalytic converters of automobiles so we may already have access to the magical fairy dust some of these corporate goons claim to have proprietary rights too. I can produce and input small amounts of H2 on demand as well, this isn’t just about HHO on demand.

          Heavy Water high voltage alkaline electrolysis cell using Palladium Electrodes? Sounds like an expensive hho electrolysis cell to me?

          Even the electrical pulses to the reactors core can be replicated using very simple hho garage technology and circuits..

          So again what is it about the professional grade CF experiments is different? What are they doing that we cannot do? Or better yet what are they doing that WE should be doing? lol

          • Gerard McEk

            Justin, I am not sure you have read what these science people do in details, but what I read is that the circumstances where LENR seems to take place requires a ‘fully loaded’ pure Hydrogen atmosphere around the nano (nickel) material. This loading requires full evacuation of the active material and heating it so all gasses are removed, probably under heated conditions and preferably more than a day with sophisticated vacuum equipment. If you do not do that, then LENR is very unlikely to happen. That is the main reason that I do not think you will find any evidence of LENR in this test. Further it seems necessary that you introduce some special catalyzer. Rossi uses possibly Beta (fast electrons) emitting (radioactive) material to initiate LENR. Others use high currents (Thunder Fusion and Black Light Power) or plasma’s (Brillouin, Defkalion).
            However, you may have found a simpler solution, so continue and prove it. Success!

          • Justin Church

            Its just as easy to switch over to H2 if need be. A automotive catalytic converter can be easily be modified to to have a vacuum pulled on it. On demand atmospheric pressure is where we are starting these experiments. All of us are too wet behind the ears to be pressurizing and pulling vacuums on these systems. I still don’t see anything the corporate boys are doing that I cannot do with my equipment. I only need to know the how and why and we can certainly adjust parameters.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, Gerard — I don’t want anyone to feel any kind of obligation or expectation to contribute to this project. It just depends one’s interests and curiosity.

  • AlanSmith

    Hi Gerard. I am not convinced that LENR is possible using this method, either. To be convinced one way or the other before I see the data would make me a very bad experimenter! I am avoiding the micro welder, despite its charms, since stable or not I see no need to spend $300 to buy a unit and I am not sure if it absolutely guarantees a steady gas-feed in the way that a fully adjustable electrolyser with pressure and volume metering would. As for mixing, for our purposes that is trivial due to the longish pipe runs and flash-over filters -all required and jolly good mixing systems in themselves.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi Frank,

    You can put me down for $50.

    • ecatworld

      Ok — thanks very much, Bob.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi Frank,

    You can put me down for $50.

    • Frank Acland

      Ok — thanks very much, Bob.

  • I’m not sure that the proposed method answers the question posed, i.e., is there an overall energy gain when water is dissociated by a Brown’s gas generator and then recombined on a catalytic surface? To answer this the power consumed by the electrolysis unit would need to be accurately monitored and recorded, in addition to measuring the energy released by recombination.

    ‘Brown’s gas’/’HHO’ is produced using a square-wave DC supply to (I believe) titanium electrodes, rather than a simple DC supply, which leads to inefficient dissociation and local generation of heat. It is claimed that some kind of resonant effect in a correctly adjusted pulsed system causes water to dissociate with relatively low energy input. At the low efficiencies that simple DC electrolysis involves it is very unlikely that there could be any overall energy gain in such a system.

    http://www.hho4free.com/browns_gas.htm

    It has also been suggested that the hydrogen from a ‘true’ Brown’s gas generator contains a non-typical ratio of spin isomers of hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Elemental_molecular_forms) and it is this that gives the mixture some of its unusual properties.

    http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/browns-gas-fuel-from-water.html

    This issue seems to have been clouded by the numbers of automotive ‘HHO kits’ on the market which mostly utilise simple DC electrolysis. As Gerard McEk says, all that is needed is a commercial pulsed unit such as a small Brown’s gas welder. Perhaps Justin Church can advise here.

    http://brownsgas.com/browns-gas-oxyhydrogen-hho-gas/generator/portable-.html

    • georgehants

      Peter, your comment along with many others seems to imply that science does not have a clue regarding the simple measurement of heat and energy.
      After about 300 years of the steam engine I find this a little strange especially as science seems so sure of it’s measurements regarding Global Warming with it’s thousands of different and variable considerations.
      Best

  • AlanSmith

    Hi 49’er. I see your point…but this experiment is designed to demonstrate whether there is any energy output difference between the ‘naked flame’ combustion of HHO (not BG! – a term which CAN cause confusion to some) and the catalytic recombination of the same with NO flame.

    If it is the case that there is a significant difference in the Delta T figures obtained from these two approaches, then maybe/probably it would be worth doing the experiment you are thinking of, with the attendant focus on the electrolysis part of the process – which for the moment I am deliberately avoiding as a potential source of experimental error.

    • Thanks for the reply Alan. However, as I said, the experiment you propose doesn’t seem to address the issue raised by Justin Church’s observations.

      Whatever the result it wouldn’t really take the matter forward very far. In the event that more heat is liberated by the catalysed reaction this could just be explained in terms of greater proportional efficiency of the catalysed reaction (% completion). If more heat is produced by the flame then vice versa – it could be assumed that less complete recombination takes place on the catalyst than in a flame. If they are equal, then this wouldn’t really tell us much either.

      As the efficiency of simple DC electrolysis of water is so low, and without knowing how much power is consumed by the process anyway, the central issue of possible energy gain would remain completely unanswered.

      • Obvious

        If the catalyst is shown to be no more efficient than flame combustion, or marginally so, then the overunity increase would have to occur at the electrolysis end, which is highly unlikely.

        • Unfortunately we have no real evidence so far of overunity in the Justin Church system. Before we get bogged down in questions such as ‘does catalytic recombination of ‘HHO’ yield more energy than combustion’ I think we need to establish whether there is or is not any indication of O/U in the complete system, before looking at particular aspects of it.

          The proposed experiment will not answer this as (1) there is no record to be made of electrical energy input to the system and (b) the method of generation of HHO is arbitrary, with no reference to the method Justin used. The experiment would only be useful if it showed a massive difference in output in favour of the catalysed reaction.

          For this reason I would favour the relatively simple ‘box’ experiment as proposed in earlier threads as the starting point for first establishing whether or not there is anything worth pursuing here. I also feel that it is important to replicate as closely as possible whatever method Justin is using to make his HHO. (Justin – if you read this, could you please post details of the method of HHO generation you used.)

          • Obvious

            Fortyniner, I get what you mean, but I think you are missing my point.

            The hydrogen production gross efficiency can be improved hugely by methods other than electrolysis. Steam reformation of hydrocarbon, high temp cracking of water by nuclear power, focused solar high temp cracking, algae byproduct H production, etc.

            In other words, the H production input side is a weak link. Moving the starting line as to where the H production efficiency begins is a problem. Does one include the making of electricity to run the electrolysis? Transmission losses from the primary electricity source? Step-down voltage losses from substation to laboratory A/C, and so on. In the worst case, the wall A/C might have been made a few electrons at a time by present nuclear fusion tech… Best to start near the end, and work back towards the primary source to evaluate various compounding losses.

            The catalyst has to be incredibly efficient in order to offset the prior losses in H generation, and these prior losses are relatively well known and studied. So if the catalyst reduction is inefficient, then the rest of the overunity house of cards falls down. It would not surprise me to find that the catalyst is about 95% efficient at reduction of H+H+O to H2O. However to overcome the electrolysis losses, it needs probably about 250% efficiency.

            The specific condition that browns gas may have more energy than H (and O?) derived from other methods may be tested, since that is the way the experiment is to be run. Bottled H instead of browns gas would be a useful control, but requires another experiment.

          • Justin Church

            My method for HHO generation is simple. Alakaline 12 volt linear DC electrolysis. 7 plate cell, 5 neutrals. You can get fancy with the electronics and cell designs but at the end of the day my faraday electrolysis 100 watt flame can melt the same stone a 100 watt resonant frequency cell can.

            This proposed test isn’t all it could be but it is something. Several other experiments can be ran using this device. Different catalyst metals could be used in the form of Nickel, Tungsten, Titanium, Palladium, Platinum. One can preheat with HHO instead of the common resistive heating techniques of Rossi and Brillouin, then switch over to H2 using a homebrewed Hydrogen Split Electrolysis cell.This may result in maintaining the heat effect without the dreaded flashback issue we are having trying to tame pure hho. You will notice that very little Hydrogen gas and very little catalyst metal is needed in the so called LENR reactors so there is no reason we cannot produce it on demand as needed using home built electrolysis cells. I agree electrical power in should be measured and documented at all times during all experiments. You could also buy some concentrated “Heavy Water” and electrolyze it and send to this device for testing. That would be interesting…

            I am getting to the “box” experiment. I have to tidy up my own design with my equipment before I can truly provide accurate numbers. I have to get the experiment sealed up in a way I am not leaking gas out of the reactor core or diluting with ambient air. The hardware isn’t to the point yet of gaining accurate numbers, but it will be very soon.

  • clovis ray

    Hi frank, wow i’m impressed, we now have a first class, lab to do some of our experimental work that we need done, from time to time, this is exultant news , and you can put me down for (50 bucks) now that 200 come on guys we are almost half way there lets get this funding part done and we can get down to brass tax’s,and find out if this enomaly, is real , we could be on to something, related to lenr here, how great would that be.

    • ecatworld

      Thanks so much, Clovis — we’re gaining.

  • clovis ray

    Hi frank, wow i’m impressed, we now have a first class, lab to do some of our experimental work that we need done, from time to time, this is exultant news , and you can put me down for (50 bucks) now that 200 come on guys we are almost half way there lets get this funding part done and we can get down to brass tax’s,and find out if this enomaly, is real , we could be on to something, related to lenr here, how great would that be.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks so much, Clovis — we’re gaining.

  • AlanSmith

    Hi again 49’er. The experimental method used ensures that incomplete combustion using either method is easily detected. Any unburnt gas in the combustion space will gradually lower the water level. But I am still pondering what you say.

    Clovis, and all the others, thank you for your VERY generous offers of financial support. Looks like the money will be raised before the method is finalised!

    ETA. I think btw, that even a negative result tells us something. That’s science for you. And building an all-singin/all-dancing electrolysis cell would be useful for doing the experiments you propose -as would the calorimeter.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    A different gas flow in both reaction types โ€“ for whatever reason โ€“ could be problematic, even if the electrical input is monitored. Measuring the flow itself is a good idea, but perhaps not so easy. In addition, you could determine the amount of consumed water by weighing the HHO generator before and after use. Of course there might be further problems, especially if the gas is not dry, but that could be checked during a test run.

    • Obvious

      Rough outline of flow regulator I posted a couple days ago:

      I think a simple flow ratio meter would be fairly easy to construct using calibrated bubblers with two separate volumes of displaced water (one double the volume of the other, for H). If the levels are equal in each bubbler, then the mixture is 2:1. For small gas volumes an inline bubbler would be OK, for large volumes some bypass circuit-type system would be needed. Long cylinders gravity fed with large reservoirs should be able to cover a wide range of flow rates. A float connected to a shutoff valve could keep water from exiting the top when shut off.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Frank, itโ€™s somewhat far-fetched, but you should perhaps add a warning notice to this page and all similar pages. People who try to repeat the described experiments without having the necessary skills could be injured. Apart from this you could possibly be sued. Lawyers in the USA are very fanciful in their claims for damages.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    A different gas flow in both reaction types โ€“ for whatever reason โ€“ could be problematic, even if the electrical input is monitored. Measuring the flow itself is a good idea, but perhaps not so easy. In addition, you could determine the amount of consumed water by weighing the HHO generator before and after use. Of course there might be further problems, especially if the gas is not dry, but that could be checked during a test run.

    • Obvious

      Rough outline of flow regulator I posted a couple days ago:

      I think a simple flow ratio meter would be fairly easy to construct using calibrated bubblers with two separate volumes of displaced water (one double the volume of the other, for H). If the levels are equal in each bubbler, then the mixture is 2:1. For small gas volumes an inline bubbler would be OK, for large volumes some bypass circuit-type system would be needed. Long cylinders gravity fed with large reservoirs should be able to cover a wide range of flow rates. A float connected to a shutoff valve could keep water from exiting the top when shut off.

  • georgehants

    Just to help some qualified scientists on page who are unaware of any scientific methods, taking the time and effort to do open-minded, competent experiments to prove a negative is very good science as long as one always leaves the door open for mistaken false results or new methods to override the original result.
    The results will not become Dogma and bad science, if this rule is followed

  • georgehants

    Just to help some qualified scientists on page who are unaware of any scientific methods, taking the time and effort to do open-minded, competent experiments to prove a negative is very good science as long as one always leaves the door open for mistaken false results or new methods to override the original result.
    The results will not then become Dogma and bad science, if this rule is followed

  • AlanSmith

    Hi Andreas. In my experience with HHO the gas will definitely need to be dried – it will contain a lot of water vapour. I already have two small in-line silica-gel gas driers – so no worries there. Measuring the flow is probably easier than you might expect -small and reasonably accurate flowmeters are easily obtained – and we are looking for relative flows, not absolute flow measurements. Weighing the electrolyser is a good idea -thankyou -added to the list!

    • Obvious

      From experience, I highly recommend a slightly wet gas. Even gas flow through a hose can generate static.

  • AlanSmith

    Hi Andreas. In my experience with HHO the gas will definitely need to be dried – it will contain a lot of water vapour. I already have two small in-line silica-gel gas driers – so no worries there. Measuring the flow is probably easier than you might expect -small and reasonably accurate flowmeters are easily obtained – and we are looking for relative flows, not absolute flow measurements. Weighing the electrolyser is a good idea -thankyou -added to the list!

    • Obvious

      From experience, I highly recommend a slightly wet gas. Even gas flow through a hose can generate static.

  • AlanSmith

    Obvious- that’s a clever idea. I was thinking about using one of these- with a lighter bobbin substituted for the one supplied – as i said we need to know relative rather than absolute gas production rates.

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Argon-Gas-Flowmeter-0-14-LPM-TIG-MIG-Welding-Flow-Meter-/141186757616?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item20df62f3f0

    • Obvious

      The bobbin idea is good, and off the shelf, which is handy. Certainly drying the gas (as you mention below) becomes more important then, as water droplets will mess with the bobbin mass.

  • AlanSmith

    Obvious- that’s a clever idea. I was thinking about using one of these- with a lighter bobbin substituted for the one supplied – as i said we need to know relative rather than absolute gas production rates.

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Argon-Gas-Flowmeter-0-14-LPM-TIG-MIG-Welding-Flow-Meter-/141186757616?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item20df62f3f0

    • Obvious

      The bobbin idea is good, and off the shelf, which is handy. Certainly drying the gas (as you mention below) becomes more important then, as water droplets will mess with the bobbin mass.

  • georgehants

    $200 from the Brits (I think), our rich American colleagues should add the other $300 in a very short time.

    • Andre Blum

      $50 from the Dutch.

      • ecatworld

        Many thanks to you, Andre.

  • georgehants

    $200 from the Brits (I think), our rich American colleagues should add the other $300 in a very short time.
    We may even see a donation from NASA shortly, overcome by their failed Mars toy truck and keen to put some of their billions to good use.
    ——
    Mars Rover goes into reverse
    Nasa engineers put Curiosity Mars Rover into reverse to reduce wear and tear on the robotโ€™s six wheels
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10663081/Mars-Rover-goes-into-reverse.html

    • Andre Blum

      $50 from the Dutch.

      • Frank Acland

        Many thanks to you, Andre.

  • Freethinker

    So Frank, what is the current count?

    • ecatworld

      We are at around $325 in pledges and donations — so it’s looking likely we’ll hit the target. Thanks so much to all!

  • Freethinker

    So Frank, what is the current count?

    • Frank Acland

      We are at around $325 in pledges and donations — so it’s looking likely we’ll hit the target. Thanks so much to all!

  • AlanSmith

    Yes, thanks to all for your contributions – and thanks also to those with ideas and concerns about the proposed experimental method.

    • Curbina

      Alan, I found rather late this post today, just wanted to thank you for all the care and effort you put into this. I also notice that certaion tradition initiated years ago of putting deadlines on April 1st, LOL.

  • AlanSmith

    Yes, thanks to all for your contributions – and thanks also to those with ideas and concerns about the proposed experimental method.

    • Curbina

      Alan, I found rather late this post today, just wanted to thank you for all the care and effort you put into this. I also notice that certaion tradition initiated years ago of putting deadlines on April 1st, LOL.

  • Alain Samoun

    Just for information: When you need to send money – Like here for a good cause – Your gift doesn’t need to be ripoff by credit cards,paypal and others like Kickstarter. You can use Dwolla https://dwolla.com They charge 25 cents for any amount transferred from your bank account and 0 cent for $10 or less gift.

    Frank or AlanSmith, you can join Dwolla so we can use the system – Goes with our philosophy I guess ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Thanks. I just joined Dwolla. However, it’s only good for payments within the USA.

  • Alain Samoun

    Just for information: When you need to send money – Like here for a good cause – Your gift doesn’t need to be ripoff by credit cards,paypal and others like Kickstarter. You can use Dwolla https://dwolla.com They charge 25 cents for any amount transferred from your bank account and 0 cent for $10 or less gift.

    Frank or AlanSmith, you can join Dwolla so we can use the system – Goes with our philosophy I guess ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Thanks. I just joined Dwolla. However, it’s only good for payments within the USA.

  • NT

    Ok, I am in for $50 as this is getting really interesting. I will use my PayPal account for the transfer Frank…

    • ecatworld

      Many thanks to you, NT.

  • NT

    Ok, I am in for $50 as this is getting really interesting. I will use my PayPal account for the transfer Frank…

    • Frank Acland

      Many thanks to you, NT.

  • NT

    Just for everyone’s information about PayPal, I just did a PayPal transfer from my account to Frank and there were no charges for that service as it was recorded as a gift from my PayPal account to him. I have been using PayPal very successfully to run several international business for many years and am very satisfied with that service…

    • Alain Samoun

      With paypal you don’t pay when you send the money,you pay fees when you receive the money for a product or service. In this case it’s a gift – no products exchanged – so you are right it’s free…

    • clovis ray

      NT,hi
      I too just sent my donation, as a gift, and there was no problem, i too have sued it for years, with no regrets,
      it is the most simple way to send your dust.

  • NT

    Just for everyone’s information about PayPal, I just did a PayPal transfer from my account to Frank and there were no charges for that service as it was recorded as a gift from my PayPal account to him. I have been using PayPal very successfully to run several international business for many years and am very satisfied with that service…

    • Alain Samoun

      With paypal you don’t pay when you send the money,you pay fees when you receive the money for a product or service. In this case it’s a gift – no products exchanged – so you are right it’s free…

      • bachcole

        So, Alain, I admit that my paranoia level with PayPal is so far over the top that astronomers finding planets in distant star systems can’t see the top of my PayPal paranoia. I keep getting messages saying that there is something wrong with my PayPal account, but I figure that they are talking about my Nigerian PayPal account, the one that eats my money and never shows a balance.

        I think that the PayPal has some of my money, but when I tried to return to them, they acted like this was my first visit. Am I being too paranoid? And if I am, how do I “re-open” my previous account that I think has some of my money.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          I’ve had great difficulty, over the years, dealing with paypal. I finally called them and got my account straightened out sufficiently to deal with vendors that only accept paypal. I don’t trust their competency enough to give them access to my checking account. I opt to pay a small fee for them to get paid from my creditcard.

          When I recently requested that paypal delete an obsolete address (my address), they almost melted down and sent me to RESOLUTION, a never-never land where only mumbling geeks can communicate.

          • bkrharold

            I also have misgivings about paypal. I gave them access to a secondary Bank Account in which I only keep small amounts, just to avoid paying them the fee. I was really disappointed with them when I read they had hung on to money intended for the victims of a natural disaster , instead of disbursing it promptly.

          • Alain Samoun

            Yes,paypal, credit cards and banks take a huge advantage of the technology: Computers processing practically costs nothing in comparison to the fees they charge. It may be a warning when LENR technology spreads, electric companies will try to keep the economic advantages for themselves.

    • clovis ray

      NT,hi
      I too just sent my donation, as a gift, and there was no problem, i too have used it for years, with no regrets,
      it is the most simple way to send your dust.

  • nickec

    I have been asked by another interested party to comment here.

    I see three issues.

    1. There are two flashback challenges. The first is hopefully already sufficiently addressed. I refer here to preventing a flame from racing up the supply line to the HHO generating cell. A second flashback challenge occurs when the reaction surface ignites the HHO. It is essential to prevent both types of flashback. Just stopping flashback from reaching the electrolyser is not enough.

    2. The experiment seems aimed to compare an open HHO flame and a Hcat reaction. Fair enough and useful. It answers one open question. It does not answer the question of input versus output as easily as using an ohmic heating scenario. Resistance heating simplifies measurement and closes a number of complicating loopholes.

    3. By drying the HHO gas you do a good thing, but you might be obscuring something. Consider the possibility that moist gas engenders a more intense reaction than dried gas. The experimenter would never know given the outlined experiment.

    Is the outlined experiment a good one? Yes. I believe a series of additional experiments are required to flesh out our knowledge. I hope my comments will prove helpful in all these experiments to come. I look forward to seeing measurements because I prefer data over opinion. I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to opine.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Regarding your second point, maybe an additional experiment with a resistance heater instead of the HHO setup would be useful. Placing the heater first in the chamber and in a second run directly in the water could provide further information.

    • clovis ray

      hi nick,
      I just want to say thank you very much, for your commitment to help, your expertise is welcome.

  • nickec

    I have been asked by another interested party to comment here.

    I see three issues.

    1. There are two flashback challenges. The first is hopefully already sufficiently addressed. I refer here to preventing a flame from racing up the supply line to the HHO generating cell. A second flashback challenge occurs when the reaction surface ignites the HHO. It is essential to prevent both types of flashback. Just stopping flashback from reaching the electrolyser is not enough.

    2. The experiment seems aimed to compare an open HHO flame and a Hcat reaction. Fair enough and useful. It answers one open question. It does not answer the question of input versus output as easily as using an ohmic heating scenario. Resistance heating simplifies measurement and closes a number of complicating loopholes.

    3. By drying the HHO gas you do a good thing, but you might be obscuring something. Consider the possibility that moist gas engenders a more intense reaction than dried gas. The experimenter would never know given the outlined experiment.

    Is the outlined experiment a good one? Yes. I believe a series of additional experiments are required to flesh out our knowledge. I hope my comments will prove helpful in all these experiments to come. I look forward to seeing measurements because I prefer data over opinion. I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to opine.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Regarding your second point, maybe an additional experiment with a resistance heater instead of the HHO setup would be useful. Placing the heater first in the chamber and in a second run directly in the water could provide further information.

    • clovis ray

      hi nick,
      I just want to say thank you very much, for your commitment to help, your expertise is welcome.

  • bachcole

    I am sure that some of you guys will not be forced by your right brains to glaze your eyes while you are trying to understand this and be able to explain it to the rest of us what it actually means:

    http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/physicists-discover-quantum-droplet-in-semiconductor/

    I might think that it is interesting, if I actually understood it. (:->)

  • CancunKurt

    I wonder how much a well documented experiment like this would gather on kickstarter?

  • AlanSmith

    Hi Nickec. Thank you for your comments – all very useful. Let’s discuss the points you raise.

    1. Flashback. A concern of mine, too. You may have noticed that both calorimeter tank and electrolyser cell are to be made from 12mm polycarbonate. Substantial stuff, and my first precaution. Both will also be fitted with ‘blow-off’ lids. This is elementary stuff. The combustion chamber is to be an upside down toughened glass vessel (think pyrex cookware) mounted inside the calorimeter tank. It will be open at the bottom thus providing an explosion-vent into the tank with its large mass of water and pop-off lid.
    The ‘catalytic’ runs present little problem since re-combination of the HHO begins immediately gas reaches the combustion chamber. In the ‘naked flame’ runs the piezo igniter will hopefully perform the same function.Hopefully all these factors – taken together with the gas-driers etc in the lines – will be enough to prevent anything more than the smallest of explosions.

    2. Not sure what loopholes we are worrying about? Can we come back to this?

    3. Dry gas/wet gas? It is I am afraid necessary to dry the gas soon after leaving the electrolyser. It is in my experience normally saturated with water which condenses in the gas lines and leads to erratic gas-feed and pressure fluctuation – not to mention destroying any chance of getting accurate flow-meter readings. However, the lower part of the combustion chamber is open to the tank-water, so the air inside will be very humid. It might be interesting to try comparative runs using the catalyst system only where gas is either fed into the CC close to the catalyst, or is bubbled up into the CC from below the water surface. Another experiment for the list perhaps?

    Thanks for your input. Alan.

  • AlanSmith

    Hi Nickec. Thank you for your comments – all very useful. Let’s discuss the points you raise.

    1. Flashback. A concern of mine, too. You may have noticed that both calorimeter tank and electrolyser cell are to be made from 12mm polycarbonate. Substantial stuff, and my first precaution. Both will also be fitted with ‘blow-off’ lids. This is elementary stuff. The combustion chamber is to be an upside down toughened glass vessel (think pyrex cookware) mounted inside the calorimeter tank. It will be open at the bottom thus providing an explosion-vent into the tank with its large mass of water and pop-off lid.
    The ‘catalytic’ runs present little problem since re-combination of the HHO begins immediately gas reaches the combustion chamber. In the ‘naked flame’ runs the piezo igniter will hopefully perform the same function.Hopefully all these factors – taken together with the gas-driers etc in the lines – will be enough to prevent anything more than the smallest of explosions.

    2. Not sure what loopholes we are worrying about? Can we come back to this?

    3. Dry gas/wet gas? It is I am afraid necessary to dry the gas soon after leaving the electrolyser. It is in my experience normally saturated with water which condenses in the gas lines and leads to erratic gas-feed and pressure fluctuation – not to mention destroying any chance of getting accurate flow-meter readings. However, the lower part of the combustion chamber is open to the tank-water, so the air inside will be very humid. It might be interesting to try comparative runs using the catalyst system only where gas is either fed into the CC close to the catalyst, or is bubbled up into the CC from below the water surface. Another experiment for the list perhaps?

    Thanks for your input. Alan.

  • Frank Acland

    Good day, everyone — good news to wake up to: Checking my paypal account this morning we have accumulated $405 in actual donations, so if those who have made pledges here send their donations, we will reach out goal! I propose that if we go over the $500 mark, I will send any extra to Alan, who as you will notice, is not charging anything for time he is putting into this project.

    Thanks again to all for supporting this experiment!

    • georgehants

      Frank, I think ECW should deduct the price of a good bottle of something from any excess first, as a thank you, to celebrate with us “if” Mr Rossi comes across with a good report.
      If not to drown all our sorrows.

  • georgehants

    A simple question for the scientists on page.
    How has science been able to deny and debunk all the claims of OU for all these years when it appears there is no established way of measuring the energy in against the energy out in any experiment.
    What has science been doing for 300 years to base it’s calculations on.
    Don’t tell me, let me guess “expert opinion” Ha.

    • Obvious

      Moving the start point of reaction calculations is an established and convenient method of both creating and destroying claims of overunity.

      The best method is to consider the mass of the entire experimental apparatus, calculate the maximum possible energy that can be contained in that mass from chemical energy, and also nuclear mass to energy conversion, and compare to the output energy. A good “yardstick” for overunity would be the field between maximum possible chemical energy and total mass to energy conversion.

      Getting back to your point, deciding what energy measurement method is acceptable to the “establishment” is a tough nut, and relies essentially on successful application of first principles and derivations thereof to the measurement process. If the first principles are subverted, then the entire scientific process fails.

      • georgehants

        Obvious, many thanks for your answer, regarding first principles, can I assume that they are based on known science and if for instance Mr. Rossi has discovered a new reaction previously unknown, then those first principles will probably fail.
        If this is so, then those first principles if not always used as a purely stopgap temporary working method, could be described as Dogma.
        If Mr. Rossi’s or any new science is discovered, then would it be fair to say that every statement that something is impossible etc., made prior would have been in error.

        • Obvious

          The “known science” is first principles. Each “proven” agreed upon bit of knowledge is supposed to be a step to higher levels of learning, so that earlier steps don’t need to be re-done each time. This is indeed the Dogma. Pull out one of the bottom steps, and the staircase collapses.

          • Obvious

            Sorry, George. The short answer is that your last sentence above is correct.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, again, thank you for taking the time to answer.
            Most scientists appear to not like these kinds of questions.
            I think you can see what I am saying, our students should not be given textbooks or taught that we know anything permanently, but taught to learn from and then question and mistrust all previous knowledge, to use it only as a stepping stone to “possible” new discoveries. (except for applied science of course)
            Would you agree that science is failing in it’s purpose if this “obvious” (HA) open-mindedness is not quickly put into place and all religious like Dogma that “we know” removed.
            Thank you again.

          • Obvious

            When the answer to a problem is arrived at from more than one line of experiment, indeed many lines of evidence in some cases, they converge to a “truth” that is hard to not to consider a permanent fact. We cannot simply mistrust all previous knowledge, but must consider the quality of evidence that supports a given “fact”. Some knowledge is nearly unassailable due to the large body of evidence, while more extraordinary claims require more extraordinary proof.

            Many approximations of fact are sufficient for our needs, even though they are incorrect at some level of detail. We send probes to Mars using Newton’s equations, although Einstein showed that those equations are not the ultimate truth of the matter. You could send a 100 probes to Mars at 30,000 mph and prove Newton right every time. But try and send probes at 90% of the speed of light to Mars, and all of a sudden you have Einstein’s rules to deal with, when before Einstein’s rules were irrelevant.

            “The wisest of the philosophers asked: “We admit that our predecessors were wiser than we. At the same time we criticize their comments, often rejecting them and claiming that the truth rests with us. How is this possible?” The wise philosopher responded: “Who sees further a dwarf or a giant? Surely a giant for his eyes are situated at a higher level than those of the dwarf. But if the dwarf is placed on the shoulders of the giant who sees further? … So too we are dwarfs astride the shoulders of giants. We master their wisdom and move beyond it. Due to their wisdom we grow wise and are able to say all that we say, but not because we are greater than they.” – Isaiah de Trani circa 1200 AD

          • georgehants

            Obvious, O dear, a most eloquent reply that seems not to answer my questions.
            I made clear that current knowledge must be used in applied science for practical reasons.
            “(except for applied science of course)”
            My question was —–
            “I think you can see what I am saying, our students should not be given
            textbooks or taught that we know anything permanently, but taught to
            learn from and then question and mistrust all previous knowledge, to use
            it only as a stepping stone to “possible” new discoveries. (except for
            applied science of course)
            Would you agree that science is failing
            in it’s purpose if this “obvious” (Ha) open-mindedness is not quickly
            put into place and all religious like Dogma that “we know” removed.
            Thank you again.”
            —–
            I am asking if you agree with my above that any attempt to retain known knowledge without making clear that it could be overridden at any time by new knowledge is bad science.
            You for some reason have quoted Sagan’s complete misnomer “while more extraordinary claims require more extraordinary proof.” which obviously is complete rubbish, as all effects require exactly the same amount of proof.
            If somebody says they saw a bus drive down the street why would anybody believe them more than somebody saying they saw a flying saucer.
            If one wanted proof then only investigation could resolve the problem, and if ten more witnesses where found for each. then I presume the case would be proven, that these things where seen.
            Just because we are familiar with buses does not mean that the individual reporting his sighting of a bus was correct in this instance, he may have had an illusion.
            —— Do you believe that students should be taught religiously that any first principle is immutable and sacred and that they should be condemned for ever questioning that Dogma?
            Thank you.

          • Obvious

            I do tend to take the long road some times…

            I agree it is a disservice to all to teach pure Dogma and that questioning the Dogma is wrong.

            In a proper scholastic environment, students are taught that all foundations of knowledge are mere constructs of the human mind, and are simply a best fit to collective experience. However, due to the constraints of teaching, and obviously the abilities of teachers themselves which are variable, and expectations that students pass their tests to move through the school system at a reasonable rate, knowledge is often fed to students as absolutes, even if it is not.

            I had a terrible time in some schools for pointing out errors in the generic knowledge doled out in some courses. But I knew better when test time came to fill in the answer desired, even if I disbelieved it. Doublethink indeed.

            I was kicked out of science courses several times (for the day, ostensibly to think about the errors of my ways) for disrupting the smooth flow of “(dis)information” to students who only needed credit for the one course so they could move on to something else.

            Eventually I was introduced to a teacher that knew where I was coming from, and had a whole class full of us misfits. I learned more there, and had more fun learning there than ever before. While the other classes learned Dogma by rote, we built all sorts of experiments, picked apart the experiments, improved them, and were required to explain why we believed what we did, or why we felt there was an inadequate description of the theory behind the experiment, or what our improved theory was, if we had one.

            We were a difficult bunch, and I’m sure our teacher worked incredibly hard for his money. I think most teachers start out that way, but fall into the spoon-feeding of Dogma because it is so much easier in the long run, and the majority of students are only vaguely interested in thinking hard, especially if they are focused on something else than the particular subject being taught.

          • georgehants

            Dear Obvious, I thank you and maybe ask that you may appreciate why this whole subject is causing my head much problems.
            You clearly are sincere, but do you notice that for you to say science teaching is wrong even after the experiences you mention, one can feel the wrench and you are almost apologetic for speaking such blasphemy.
            I have been saying for three years on these pages that only a completely open-minded science willing to admit freely that it is not infallible and does not have all the answers, if fact amost none, can lead to a situation where Mr. Rossi and many other great scientists are applauded and not condemned by the establishment etc.
            Most scientists refuse to answer and I thank you for doing so.
            If things do not change then the next generation of students will face the same dilemmas as you and I am sure many other youngsters with brilliant minds that set out searching for the unknown, will be destroyed before they even have a chance to begin.
            Best.

          • Obvious

            I have hope that there are enough good teachers out there that really care about teaching.

            Funny how this discussion brings back memories, though. I remember a great argument with my grade 6 science teacher. We were learning about Work and Forces. There was a question about whether an ant that picked up a grain of sand weighing some small amount to some small height had performed Work. I said yes. The teacher claimed no, because of the rounding effect with the significant figures (apparently a trick question). I said, “That wasn’t the question, the question was “Was there work performed?”. The math was irrelevant; the math didn’t need to be done at all. It doesn’t matter if it is significant to us, it was significant to the ant”. Out the door I went, again.

          • Obvious

            I’ll amend the above with a short story of my Grade 13 final exam English essay (they had grade 13 back then).

            We could choose from a short list of topics, and were allowed to take an opposite view of one the topics listed. I chose “Violence on television is bad for children.” Of course, I also chose the opposing view, for fun mostly. I “knew” the essay was mostly graded for structure and not the content. The final essay was to represent a major percentage of the total marks for the course.

            Well, the exam came back with a solid fail. (34% I think). In cases where the final exam marks were extremely at variance with the student’s general marks for the course, they were sent for review by a second “judge”. By complete fluke my English teacher was the independent second judge. (The exams were numbered, so the student could not be in theory identified). She knew at once that the essay was mine. After she re-marked the essay, because she knew it was mine, it had to go for another review by a third judge. The original reviewer had written “impossible, ridiculous”, etc. all over the essay in red pen. I had in fact only two spelling errors, and otherwise a perfectly constructed essay with supporting sub theses and a solid conclusion. The second review, and (as I was told) begrudgingly the third, came up with a 98% mark.

          • georgehants

            Another story about “peer review” that we know is just as corrupt and incompetent today.
            I think only free open publishing on the Internet can solve that problem.
            But O dear where will our “important” journal editors be then. Ha

          • Obvious

            My misfit science teacher started the season with a comment along the lines of “My job here is to teach you HOW to think. Anybody can fill your heads with ideas. If you come out of here knowing how to examine ideas and put that knowledge to work, then my job is done. I can’t make you smart. I can’t tell you what to think. I will tell you that some exams will need the answers they ask for, if you believe in marks and grades. But the real world is not made of grades and marks. The world may judge you by your marks, though. I can’t do much about that.”

          • Alain Samoun

            Can’t say ‘complete bull’ as the communication demos are spectacular. For power transmission we will see…

          • Obvious

            If we could reliably beam a 1 cm globe of power somewhere, coalesced from multiple antennae, over many, many miles, I don’t see why we can’t put a proton where we want it, right in front of us.

  • georgehants

    A simple question for the scientists on page.
    How has science been able to deny and debunk all the claims of OU for all these years when it appears there is no established way of measuring the energy in against the energy out in any experiment.
    What has science been doing for 300 years to base it’s calculations on.
    Don’t tell me, let me guess “expert opinion” Ha.

    • Obvious

      Moving the start point of reaction calculations is an established and convenient method of both creating and destroying claims of overunity.

      The best method is to consider the mass of the entire experimental apparatus, calculate the maximum possible energy that can be contained in that mass from chemical energy, and also nuclear mass to energy conversion, and compare to the output energy. A good “yardstick” for “overunity” would be the field between maximum possible chemical energy and total mass to energy conversion.

      Getting back to your point, deciding what energy measurement method is acceptable to the “establishment” is a tough nut, and relies essentially on successful application of first principles and derivations thereof to the measurement process. If the first principles are subverted, then the entire scientific process fails.

      • georgehants

        Obvious, many thanks for your answer, regarding first principles, can I assume that they are based on known science and if for instance Mr. Rossi has discovered a new reaction previously unknown, then those first principles will probably fail.
        If this is so, then those first principles if not always used as a purely stopgap temporary working method, could be described as Dogma.
        If Mr. Rossi’s or any new science is discovered, then would it be fair to say that every statement that something is impossible etc., made prior would have been in error.

        • Obvious

          The first principles is knowledge reduced to the basic ingredients. Each “proven” agreed upon bit of knowledge is supposed to be a step to higher levels of learning, so that earlier steps don’t need to be re-done each time. This is indeed the Dogma to some extent. Pull out one of the bottom steps, and the staircase above collapses.

          For example, we don’t need to prove every single time that one degree on a thermometer is equal to a certain amount of expansion of mercury or alcohol in an enclosed tube of described volume, and increments are based on physical conditions such as the state of water at various state changes, in order to use a thermometer to measure something. If there is no agreement on basic “laws” or conditions that are ‘universal” at some set condition, then nothing can be described or measured.

          If a lower step is broken, it usually hoped that much of the staircase can be salvaged at a landing along the way, rather than the total destruction of the hypothetical staircase. But one cannot jump a gap in the stairs without fixing the hole, scientifically. However one could construct items based on unknown steps that do actually function, without knowing how many steps should be there. IE: “cavemen” using fire.

          • Obvious

            Sorry, George. The short answer is that your last sentence above is correct.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, again, thank you for taking the time to answer.
            Most scientists appear to not like these kinds of questions.
            I think you can see what I am saying, our students should not be given textbooks or taught that we know anything permanently, but taught to learn from and then question and mistrust all previous knowledge, to use it only as a stepping stone to “possible” new discoveries. (except for applied science of course)
            Would you agree that science is failing in it’s purpose if this “obvious” (Ha) open-mindedness is not quickly put into place and all religious like Dogma that “we know” removed.
            Thank you again.

          • Obvious

            When the answer to a problem is arrived at from more than one line of experiment, indeed many lines of evidence in some cases, they converge to a “truth” that is hard to not consider to be a permanent fact. We cannot simply mistrust all previous knowledge, but must consider the quality of evidence that supports a given “fact”. Some knowledge is nearly unassailable due to the large body of evidence, while more extraordinary claims require more extraordinary proof.

            Many approximations of fact are sufficient for our needs, even though they are incorrect at some level of detail. We send probes to Mars using Newton’s equations, although Einstein showed that those equations are not the ultimate truth of the matter. You could send a 100 probes to Mars at 30,000 mph and prove Newton right every time. But try and send probes at 90% of the speed of light to Mars, and all of a sudden you have Einstein’s rules to deal with, when before Einstein’s rules were irrelevant.

            “The wisest of the philosophers asked: “We admit that our predecessors were wiser than we. At the same time we criticize their comments, often rejecting them and claiming that the truth rests with us. How is this possible?” The wise philosopher responded: “Who sees further a dwarf or a giant? Surely a giant for his eyes are situated at a higher level than those of the dwarf. But if the dwarf is placed on the shoulders of the giant who sees further? … So too we are dwarfs astride the shoulders of giants. We master their wisdom and move beyond it. Due to their wisdom we grow wise and are able to say all that we say, but not because we are greater than they.” – Isaiah de Trani circa 1200 AD

          • georgehants

            Obvious, O dear, a most eloquent reply that seems not to answer my questions.
            I made clear that current knowledge must be used in applied science for practical reasons.
            “(except for applied science of course)”
            My question was —–
            “I think you can see what I am saying, our students should not be given
            textbooks or taught that we know anything permanently, but taught to
            learn from and then question and mistrust all previous knowledge, to use
            it only as a stepping stone to “possible” new discoveries. (except for
            applied science of course)
            Would you agree that science is failing
            in it’s purpose if this “obvious” (Ha) open-mindedness is not quickly
            put into place and all religious like Dogma that “we know” removed.
            Thank you again.”
            —–
            I am asking if you agree with my above that any attempt to retain known knowledge without making clear that it could be overridden at any time by new knowledge is bad science.
            You for some reason have quoted Sagan’s complete misnomer “while more extraordinary claims require more extraordinary proof.” which obviously is complete rubbish, as all effects require exactly the same amount of proof.
            If somebody says they saw a bus drive down the street why would anybody believe them more than somebody saying they saw a flying saucer.
            If one wanted proof then only investigation could resolve the problem, and if ten more witnesses where found for each. then I presume the case would be proven, that these things where seen.
            Just because we are familiar with buses does not mean that the individual reporting his sighting of a bus was correct in this instance, he may have had an illusion.
            —— Do you believe that students should be taught religiously that any first principle is immutable and sacred and that they should be condemned for ever questioning that Dogma?
            Thank you.

          • Obvious

            I do tend to take the long road some times…

            I agree it is a disservice to all to teach pure Dogma and that questioning the Dogma is wrong.

            In a proper scholastic environment, students are taught that all foundations of knowledge are mere constructs of the human mind, and are simply a best fit to collective experience. However, due to the constraints of teaching, and obviously the abilities of teachers themselves which are variable, and expectations that students pass their tests to move through the school system at a reasonable rate, knowledge is often fed to students as absolutes, even if it is not.

            I had a terrible time in some schools for pointing out errors in the generic knowledge doled out in some courses. But I knew better when test time came to fill in the answer desired, even if I disbelieved it. Doublethink indeed.

            I was kicked out of science courses several times (for the day, ostensibly to think about the errors of my ways) for disrupting the smooth flow of “(dis)information” to students who only needed credit for the one course so they could move on to something else.

            Eventually I was introduced to a teacher that knew where I was coming from, and had a whole class full of us misfits. I learned more there, and had more fun learning there than ever before. While the other classes learned Dogma by rote, we built all sorts of experiments, picked apart the experiments, improved them, and were required to explain why we believed what we did, or why we felt there was an inadequate description of the theory behind the experiment, or what our improved theory was, if we had one.

            We were a difficult bunch, and I’m sure our teacher worked incredibly hard for his money. I think most teachers start out that way, but fall into the spoon-feeding of Dogma because it is so much easier in the long run, and the majority of students are only vaguely interested in thinking hard, especially if they are focused on something else than the particular subject being taught.

          • georgehants

            Dear Obvious, I thank you and maybe ask that you may appreciate why this whole subject is causing my head much problems.
            You clearly are sincere, but do you notice that for you to say science teaching is wrong even after the experiences you mention, one can feel the wrench and you are almost apologetic for speaking such blasphemy.
            I have been saying for three years on these pages that only a completely open-minded science willing to admit freely that it is not infallible and does not have all the answers, if fact amost none, can lead to a situation where Mr. Rossi and many other great scientists are applauded and not condemned by the establishment etc.
            Most scientists refuse to answer and I thank you for doing so.
            If things do not change then the next generation of students will face the same dilemmas as you and I am sure many other youngsters with brilliant minds that set out searching for the unknown, will be destroyed before they even have a chance to begin.
            Best.

          • Obvious

            I have hope that there are enough good teachers out there that really care about teaching.

            Funny how this discussion brings back memories, though. I remember a great argument with my grade 6 science teacher. We were learning about Work and Forces. There was a question about whether an ant that picked up a grain of sand weighing some small amount to some small height had performed Work. I said yes. The teacher claimed no, because of the rounding effect with the significant figures (apparently a trick question). I said, “That wasn’t the question, the question was “Was there work performed?”. The math was irrelevant; the math didn’t need to be done at all. It doesn’t matter if it is significant to us, it was significant to the ant”. Out the door I went, again.

            Edit: I had a lot of trouble with that particular teacher. I once received a 27/30 on a test of his. I added the individual marks on the sheet, and they added up to 29/30. When I presented the test to him to fix the addition error, he told me that he meant to give me no more than 27, then proceeded to mark two answers lower to fit his preconceived total. That class is where my faith in the authority of teachers was shattered. In the story above this paragraph, it would have resulted in most of the class getting one more mark on their tests if he had conceded my point, which he would not. In fact, I think it was the same test. I was pretty mad because I thought I had finally got all answers right for once. No wonder I remember it so well.

          • Obvious

            I’ll amend the above with a short story of my Grade 13 final exam English essay (they had grade 13 back then).

            We could choose from a short list of topics, and were allowed to take an opposite view of one the topics listed. I chose “Violence on television is bad for children.” Of course, I also chose the opposing view, for fun mostly. I “knew” the essay was mostly graded for structure and not the content. The final essay was to represent a major percentage of the total marks for the course.

            Well, the exam came back with a solid fail. (34% I think). In cases where the final exam marks were extremely at variance with the student’s general marks for the course, they were sent for review by a second “judge”. By complete fluke my English teacher was the independent second judge. (The exams were numbered, so the student could not in theory be identified). She knew at once that the essay was mine. After she re-marked the essay, because she knew it was mine, it had to go for another review by a third judge. The original reviewer had written “impossible, ridiculous”, etc. all over the essay in red pen. I had in fact only two spelling errors, and otherwise a perfectly constructed essay with supporting sub theses and a solid conclusion. The second review, and (as I was told) begrudgingly the third, came up with a 98% mark.

          • georgehants

            Another story about “peer review” that we know is just as corrupt and incompetent today.
            I think only free open publishing on the Internet can solve that problem.
            But O dear where will our “important” journal editors be then. Ha

          • Obvious

            My misfit science teacher started the season with a comment along the lines of “My job here is to teach you HOW to think. Anybody can fill your heads with ideas. If you come out of here knowing how to examine ideas and put that knowledge to work, then my job is done. I can’t make you smart. I can’t tell you what to think. I will tell you that some exams will need the answers they ask for, if you believe in marks and grades. But the real world is not made of grades and marks. The world may judge you by your marks, though. I can’t do much about that.”

  • Bernie777

    If this shows excess heat, look out, there are going to be dozens, if not hundreds of reasons why the experiment was improperly done.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Didn’t you know that excess heat is an irrefutable proof that there are hidden wires?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Seriously: Of course we will have to consider that there could have been measurement errors, or mistakes in the experimental design or in the interpretation of data. That’s normal. Every possibility has to be checked.

        • clovis ray

          don’t worry, the project is in good hands,Alan, knows what procedures, to use in order to obtain the most accurate data, of the work that i’v seen preformed by alan, it was very conclusive , leaving no stone upturned, he will listen to other input as well, and that in itself, is a good trait, that i know he has,

      • clovis ray

        You know the ole saying, truth is sometimes, stranger than fiction, i feel this apply to your statment,,lol

    • GreenWin

      My same thought Bernie. This should be approached as science fair project, without expectation of acceptance by a science establishment. It is a worthy pursuit at this level, if only to see the crowd funding challenge met.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    If this shows excess heat, look out, there are going to be dozens, if not hundreds of reasons why the experiment was improperly done.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Didn’t you know that excess heat is an irrefutable proof that there are hidden wires?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Seriously: Of course we will have to consider that there could have been measurement errors, or mistakes in the experimental design or in the interpretation of data. That’s normal. Every possibility has to be checked.

        • clovis ray

          don’t worry, the project is in good hands,Alan, knows what procedures, to use in order to obtain the most accurate data, of the work that i’v seen preformed by alan, it was very conclusive , leaving no stone upturned, he will listen to other input as well, and that in itself, is a good trait, that i know he has,

      • clovis ray

        You know the ole saying, truth is sometimes, stranger than fiction, i feel this apply to your statment,,lol

    • GreenWin

      My same thought Bernie. This should be approached as science fair project, without expectation of acceptance by a science establishment. It is a worthy pursuit at this level, if only to see the crowd funding challenge met.

  • Obvious

    Off topic a bit, but I can suggest a case where, if not electro-chemo-physical overunity, but dollar cost overunity can be achieved (to a limited extent).
    Carbon + water catalysis of metallic aluminum to aluminum hydroxide produces H(2), which can be burned (or “burned” in a fuel cell, etc.). If one were to catalytically oxidize aluminum metal produced in 1970’s dollars, and produce H today, you could possibly recuperate the electricity cost input (originally used to make Al from Al2O3, etc.) at less than present cost. The dollar gain is the inflation difference.

  • AlanSmith

    So you protected the dollars you invested in 1970 price Aluminium against inflation? A cunning plan, but in that case how OU are T-Bills?

    • Obvious

      Past performance is no guarantee of future gains…
      If the interest rate does not exceed true inflation, then a buying power loss is certain, no matter what the paper dollar value. Ever wonder why gold is $1300 now, and was only $35 in 1970, when we are collectively much better at extracting it? (Blaming Nixon is not an entirely valid excuse). Of course it is more complicated than that.
      I can see this post causing wandering waaaay off topic…

      Edit: Have a look at where aluminum sits in one of those graphs of power density.

  • AlanSmith

    So you protected the dollars you invested in 1970 price Aluminium against inflation? A cunning plan, but in that case how OU are T-Bills?

    • Obvious

      Past performance is no guarantee of future gains…
      If the interest rate does not exceed true inflation, then a buying power loss is certain, no matter what the paper dollar value. Ever wonder why gold is $1300 now, and was only $35 in 1970, when we are collectively much better at extracting it? (Blaming Nixon is not an entirely valid excuse). Of course it is more complicated than that.
      I can see this post causing wandering waaaay off topic…

      Edit: Have a look at where aluminum sits in one of those graphs of power density. From the Wickedpedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

  • HiggsField

    I think you are making this way to complex. I already posted a very simple, and quick way to show if there is any excess energy from Justins’s HHO setup. If you follow my calorimetry approach it could be done for a $100 or so and you would have results with the end of the day. If you start first thing tomorrow you could post the result by tea time.

    • Justin Church

      Personally, I agree to a certain extent. Some of the comments are getting into crazy variables like humidity in the room and atmospheric pressures. Its crazy. If for some reason there is an excess of heat, as long as you make the experiment large enough, there will be no doubt. Just trying to stabilize the reaction is difficult so thats been our main problem. The process produces water and that water or vapor has to be kept away from the catalyst material or the reaction will diminish in efficiency. If the metal is covered up with water, the gas has no way to interact with the metal, so you have to keep moisture wicked away as well. This open experiment being inside a water tank will become problematic and may obscure any and all results if the substrate becomes saturated with moisture. I am looking to pull something off the shelf to use as the reactor itself which is the automobile catalytic converter. Its large enough where once I get it all sealed properly, maintain and control the reaction, The heat output can be directly measured using the box method and I can pit it up against a resistive heater the same wattage in the same size box beside it. I get it, its not a hard test but again, you have to have a stable reactor first before you can run the test. Running accurate calorimetry tests hasn’t been easy thus far. Sealing, wicking away water, and flashback all have to be solved first to maintain stability and control. We are working on it, hho is not an easy gas to tame but again we have the option of switching over to H2 if need be. We keep increasing temps little by little without flashback so all is not lost.

  • HiggsField

    I think you are making this way to complex. I already posted a very simple, and quick way to show if there is any excess energy from Justins’s HHO setup. If you follow my calorimetry approach it could be done for a $100 or so and you would have results with the end of the day. If you start first thing tomorrow you could post the result by tea time.

    • Justin Church

      Personally, I agree to a certain extent. Some of the comments are getting into crazy variables like humidity in the room and atmospheric pressures. Its crazy. If for some reason there is an excess of heat, as long as you make the experiment large enough, there will be no doubt. Just trying to stabilize the reaction is difficult so thats been our main problem. The process produces water and that water or vapor has to be kept away from the catalyst material or the reaction will diminish in efficiency. If the metal is covered up with water, the gas has no way to interact with the metal, so you have to keep moisture wicked away as well. This open experiment being inside a water tank will become problematic and may obscure any and all results if the substrate becomes saturated with moisture. I am looking to pull something off the shelf to use as the reactor itself which is the automobile catalytic converter. Its large enough where once I get it all sealed properly, maintain and control the reaction, The heat output can be directly measured using the box method and I can pit it up against a resistive heater the same wattage in the same size box beside it. I get it, its not a hard test but again, you have to have a stable reactor first before you can run the test. Running accurate calorimetry tests hasn’t been easy thus far. Sealing, wicking away water, and flashback all have to be solved first to maintain stability and control. We are working on it, hho is not an easy gas to tame but again we have the option of switching over to H2 if need be. We keep increasing temps little by little without flashback so all is not lost.

      • HiggsField

        I appreciate the challenge. Solutions for trapping water vapor are I’m sure readily available in chemistry distillation setups. Perhaps somebody here knows how this could be done simply and effectively. I’ll do some searching around. Water vapor is in intact one of the heat losses in the system. The most important thing is to make sure that you have 100% conversion of the HHO gas into heat. Woopie Jump has several videos posted where he uses a syringe needle embedded into the catalyst material. He seems to have solved both the problem of flash back and water vapor. The box calorimeter setup as I post before could be quite crudely made. You are only trying to get a first order reading on the system efficiency. You should easily be able to measure the comparative temperature difference between a resistance heating source and your setup within a few minutes of operation. I think you want to keep the setup small, as in Jump’s videos. Also there will be residual gas left in the system that has not been converted to heat. You might what to consider do something like this:

        1. For a given dc power input measure the the volume of gas being generated in ml/s. You could do this using a graduated measuring cylinder. and a water bath. More on that in a later post if you are interested.

        2. Build a 1ft square insulated box for your calorimeter and measure the temperature gain inside the box using a resistive heating element.. Lets say you input 10 or 20 Watts for 10 min.. Plot the rise in temp inside the box. I would get a cheap data logger so you can plot the temp rise.

        3. Input the same the amount of energy into the HHO generator, and put your gas into the catalyst material. I appreciate that you have to resolve the vapor problem etc. You want to run the experiment for a decent amount of time to mitigate that fact that there will be residual gas in the generator that will cause an error in efficiency calculation

        I would expect that you could get 1 to 2% accuracy with this setup. With a little work you could calculate the uncertainties, but I would only bother to do that after you have ascertained that you have OU.

        I would be surprised if the overall efficiency is great that 25%. I have my hat ready to eat.

  • Justin Church

    Very intriguing experiment. Different than my approach. This is more of a small scale calorimetry measurement device as apposed to an actual functional heater based on the effect. I do not think the only testing to be done should be hho flame vs hho catalytic effect. Once you have the equipment setup a number of experiments can be ran very easily. I can tell you an hho flame straight to the substrate will begin to melt the surface of contact quickly if its too intense.

    A variation of materials with metal content like Nickel, Tungsten, Titanium, Palladium, Platinum individually or combinations of them should be experimented with if the budget permits.

    If you are building the electrolyzer to produce hho its just as easy to build a small unit as well that can produce H2 on demand. You can build a simple and cheap porous membrane diffusion cell then pass the Hydrogen gas through a micro catalytic re-combiner to purify the gas upon entry to the actual experimental reactor. An experiment we are working to complete is pre-heating with HHO either using catalytic process or flame itself, then switching over to H2 to maintain the heat reaction if possible. Sounds like LENR to me.

    Its also possible also send electrical wave pulses and frequencies over the catalytic structure. Personally, these experiments seem to parallel with the E-Cat Gas Reactor and the Hot-Tube gas reactor. I see no difference in the Hydrogen gas they are using and the Hydrogen gas I can use. Nanotechnology is used to build automotive catalytic converters as well so it seems to me the same “Fairy Dust” some of the corporate boys are using is also on store shelves in the form of these catalytic converter devices.

    I wish you luck…Thanks for looking into the H-Cat experiments.

  • Justin Church

    Very intriguing experiment. Different than my approach. This is more of a small scale calorimetry measurement device as apposed to an actual functional heater based on the effect. I do not think the only testing to be done should be hho flame vs hho catalytic effect. Once you have the equipment setup a number of experiments can be ran very easily. I can tell you an hho flame straight to the substrate will begin to melt the surface of contact quickly if its too intense.

    A variation of materials with metal content like Nickel, Tungsten, Titanium, Palladium, Platinum individually or combinations of them should be experimented with if the budget permits.

    If you are building the electrolyzer to produce hho its just as easy to build a small unit as well that can produce H2 on demand. You can build a simple and cheap porous membrane diffusion cell then pass the Hydrogen gas through a micro catalytic re-combiner to purify the gas upon entry to the actual experimental reactor. An experiment we are working to complete is pre-heating with HHO either using catalytic process or flame itself, then switching over to H2 to maintain the heat reaction if possible. Sounds like LENR to me.

    Its also possible also send electrical wave pulses and frequencies over the catalytic structure. Personally, these experiments seem to parallel with the E-Cat Gas Reactor and the Hot-Tube gas reactor. I see no difference in the Hydrogen gas they are using and the Hydrogen gas I can use. Nanotechnology is used to build automotive catalytic converters as well so it seems to me the same “Fairy Dust” some of the corporate boys are using is also on store shelves in the form of these catalytic converter devices.

    I wish you luck…Thanks for looking into the H-Cat experiments.

  • AlanSmith

    HI Justin. Pleased to discuss this with the chief culprit! As you say, a modest calorimetry experiment. I think it’s good that it’s different to your approach – if we all approach from different directions then the bugger will be surrounded.

    I plan to put considerable effort into building a half-decent calorimeter and electrolyser, hopefully versatile enough to be used for a number of successor experiments to the two proposed. As you say, once set up other experiments will be easy. Plenty have come to mind and no small number to my inbox via ‘Leap Forward Laboratory Ltd’ on Facebook. ( like the page if you would – I am trying to get 100 likes, a bet with my big brother who thinks me entirely crazy and therefore a lonely person!
    I note you comment elsewhere on the humidity factor. The presence of water vapour is a little unavoidable given the procedure – but hopefully as the system stabilises leading up to a test run much of this will condense on the walls of the combustion chamber and run down to join the water in the calorimeter tank. The gas will be dried before arriving at the combustion point- after that the system will be producing it’s own moisture. Lots of tinkering ahead!

    The budget we have should take us a little way- though perhaps not into Palladium country. I do believe that good science can be done cheaply, however cheap science is not always good – especially when working in such a contentious area.

    I shall avoid playing a naked flame directly onto the catalytic substrate – thank you for the tip. Also its not a problem to make the electrolyser suitable for mixed or separate gases -and I shall do so.

    For now I want to keep it simple, and accurate. The peanut gallery are watching. ๐Ÿ™‚

    @Higgsfield Have you got any results to show yet? Tea time looms!

    • georgehants

      Alan, have you taken into account that if you where to report from your experiments any positive indication of an anomaly, that almost the whole of science including academics, the establishment, journals and many other hangers on would immediately begin to attack, abuse, insult and generally imply that you are a crackpot, fraud etc.
      Your personal life would be invaded and if you have ever received a parking ticket you would be branded a criminal etc.
      It is something to consider in this unfortunate World, that like Mr.Rossi and many others in science, success in a subject not deemed appropriate by the religious like science inquisition, can lead to many problems for a good and honest scientist.
      Good luck with your venture should you be brave enough to continue.

  • AlanSmith

    HI Justin. Pleased to discuss this with the chief culprit! As you say, a modest calorimetry experiment. I think it’s good that it’s different to your approach – if we all approach from different directions then the bugger will be surrounded.

    I plan to put considerable effort into building a half-decent calorimeter and electrolyser, hopefully versatile enough to be used for a number of successor experiments to the two proposed. As you say, once set up other experiments will be easy. Plenty have come to mind and no small number to my inbox via ‘Leap Forward Laboratory Ltd’ on Facebook. ( like the page if you would – I am trying to get 100 likes, a bet with my big brother who thinks me entirely crazy and therefore a lonely person!
    I note you comment elsewhere on the humidity factor. The presence of water vapour is a little unavoidable given the procedure – but hopefully as the system stabilises leading up to a test run much of this will condense on the walls of the combustion chamber and run down to join the water in the calorimeter tank. The gas will be dried before arriving at the combustion point- after that the system will be producing it’s own moisture. Lots of tinkering ahead!

    The budget we have should take us a little way- though perhaps not into Palladium country. I do believe that good science can be done cheaply, however cheap science is not always good – especially when working in such a contentious area.

    I shall avoid playing a naked flame directly onto the catalytic substrate – thank you for the tip. Also its not a problem to make the electrolyser suitable for mixed or separate gases -and I shall do so.

    For now I want to keep it simple, and accurate. The peanut gallery are watching. ๐Ÿ™‚

    @Higgsfield Have you got any results to show yet? Tea time looms!

    • georgehants

      Alan, have you taken into account that if you where to report from your experiments any positive indication of an anomaly, that almost the whole of science including academics, the establishment, journals and many other hangers on would immediately begin to attack, abuse, insult and generally imply that you are a crackpot, fraud etc.
      Your personal life would be invaded and if you have ever received a parking ticket you would be branded a criminal etc.
      It is something to consider in this unfortunate World, that like Mr.Rossi and many others in science, success in a subject not deemed appropriate by the religious like science inquisition, can lead to many problems for a good and honest scientist.
      Good luck with your venture should you be brave enough to continue.

  • AlanSmith

    Hi George. Don’t worry about me. My house is known locally as the Fuhrerbunker, pretty secure! And as for courage, there is an old Cockney expression ‘faint heart never ****** a nannygoat. While I have no particular love for goats, I am not bothered by the peanut gallery. But I am touched by your concern.

    • georgehants

      Alan, my god if there where more true scientists like yourself —–
      Best wishes.

  • AlanSmith

    Hi George. Don’t worry about me. My house is known locally as the Fuhrerbunker, pretty secure! And as for courage, there is an old Cockney expression ‘faint heart never ****** a nannygoat. While I have no particular love for goats, I am not bothered by the peanut gallery. But I am touched by your concern.

    • georgehants

      Alan, my god if only there where more true scientists like yourself —–
      Best wishes.

  • david55
    • Alain Samoun

      Thanks David!
      Will change the current communication infrastructure limits (No more cables and DSL within a few years.) But above all will render feasible Tesla’s dream of wireless energy transfer. Think electric cars without batteries.
      Mind blowing… Frank you need an article on that!

  • david55
    • bachcole

      Complete bull. The energy is still going to be directed in a 360 degree sphere
      wasting lots of energy and perhaps even frying a lot of children and
      other living things.

      • Alain Samoun

        Can’t say ‘complete bull’ as the communication demos are spectacular. For power transmission we will see…

        • Obvious

          If we could reliably beam a 1 cm globe of power somewhere, coalesced from multiple antennae, over many, many miles, I don’t see why we can’t put a proton where we want it, right in front of us.

        • bachcole

          I was talking about wireless energy transmission via broadcast, not using a focused laser or something along that line (excuse the pun). And with my definition here, I will stick with “complete bull”. We ALREADY have people complaining about being disturbed by wireless communication transmission via broadcast, probably highly sensitive people. What do you suppose these very same people are going to experience when we jack up the power 1 million times.

          What’s funny is that these very same highly sensitive people put Tesla on a pedestal and ride around on their unicorns worshiping him.

    • Alain Samoun

      Thanks David!
      Will change the current communication infrastructure limits (No more cables and DSL within a few years.) But above all will render feasible Tesla’s dream of wireless energy transfer. Think electric cars without batteries.
      Mind blowing… Frank you need an article on that!

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Frank, itโ€™s somewhat far-fetched, but you should perhaps add a warning notice to this page and all similar pages. People who try to repeat the described experiments without having the necessary skills could be injured. Apart from this you could possibly be sued. Lawyers in the USA are very fanciful in their claims for damages.

  • Christina

    The better part of valor is to talk to a lawyer, Frank. Better now than after the horse is out of the stable, but do as Andreas Moraitis says and make certain people understand that these experiments can’t be reproduced by anyone not intimately familiar with a particular science.

    I used to work for the lawyers as a typist. Go talk to one.

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys, iiii don’t know,about the lawyer, thing, the only one that could be hurt, is alan, and he and the admin, have ironed those things out already, this is just a quick and dirty test to help us understand what is going on with this seemingly obvious, burst of energy, then we can, decide what the next move will be, i personally believe that there is something going on here.
    and if so we might have our own handle on this lenr thing our-self. wouldn’t that be awesome.

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys, iiii don’t know,about the lawyer, thing, the only one that could be hurt, is alan, and he and the admin, have ironed those things out already, this is just a quick and dirty test to help us understand what is going on with this seemingly obvious, burst of energy, then we can, decide what the next move will be, i personally believe that there is something going on here.
    and if so we might have our own handle on this lenr thing our-self. wouldn’t that be awesome.

  • AlanSmith

    I also think that it is important to emphasise/highlight safety procedures (without actually being either too anal or too boring) all the way through the various stages if the experiments. And say ‘don’t try this at home, folks’)

  • AlanSmith

    A little update on the HHO experiment.

    . Parcels have started arriving (like a birthday) and I have been re-arranging the workshop in order to make space for the experimental equipment build program.

    So far the stainless steel plate and neoprene gasket material for the bubbler, the 1/2 acre of 12mm lexan polycarbonate, thermometers and the parts to build a stirrer have arrived.

    Spent a pleasant hour ๐Ÿ™ cutting the stainless into suitable plates. To stay in budget I bought offcuts of 316 plate- much much cheaper than ready-cut pieces but they do require a little TLC with a file and hacksaw. Images will appear as work gets under way. This job is not slated to start until April – but I must confess that hacksawing is a welcome change from all the bank, tax, and regulatory paperwork I am currently having to do for Leap Forward Labs.

    One offer, one request.

    I now have some spare free-cutting stainless plate, free to a good HHOme – but I would appreciate payment for the postage. Let me know if you would like them to build an electrolyser- email with your requirements at: [email protected]

    REQUEST. Does anybody have a spare piece of catalyser matrix? A piece around as big oas the palm of your habd woyld be perfect. This job is running way over budget now and if you have a piece it would be a great help. Email as above.

  • AlanSmith

    A little update on the HHO experiment.

    . Parcels have started arriving (like a birthday) and I have been re-arranging the workshop in order to make space for the experimental equipment build program.

    So far the stainless steel plate and neoprene gasket material for the bubbler, the 1/2 acre of 12mm lexan polycarbonate, thermometers and the parts to build a stirrer have arrived.

    Spent a pleasant hour ๐Ÿ™ cutting the stainless into suitable plates. To stay in budget I bought offcuts of 316 plate- much much cheaper than ready-cut pieces but they do require a little TLC with a file and hacksaw. Images will appear as work gets under way. This job is not slated to start until April – but I must confess that hacksawing is a welcome change from all the bank, tax, and regulatory paperwork I am currently having to do for Leap Forward Labs.

    One offer, one request.

    I now have some spare free-cutting stainless plate, free to a good HHOme – but I would appreciate payment for the postage. Let me know if you would like them to build an electrolyser- email with your requirements at: [email protected]

    REQUEST. Does anybody have a spare piece of catalyser matrix? A piece around as big oas the palm of your habd woyld be perfect. This job is running way over budget now and if you have a piece it would be a great help. Email as above.