It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# HHO Truth

page: 8
4
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:55 PM

you are just spinning now in an effort to feed your ego. as i stated you are correctly explaining what has been taught to you and i have no problems with that. you are right and i am wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...

Confusion of watts, watt-hours and watts per hour
The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed and hence is measured in units (e.g. watts) that represent 'energy per unit time'

Like i said i understand how it is taught and used in todays world. I urge you if you want to understand what i am saying is that when the watt was first calculated by james watt he was using time already in his formula. There are several aspects to thin including the force of gravity itself also refer to equations that are derrived from a set amount of time. To then take that measurement and assign another time value of joules is false and is the basis of the current electrical minipulation that happens today. Further if you research where this need came from you will learn it was to bill consumers. It is all backed up by false math.
edit on 13-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 04:02 PM

yes what you say is true but does not negate what i am saying unless one makes it look like i said something completly different than what i did say.

My statment was that they are adding water vapor to the combustion chamber. I did not state to add a water mist to the chamber. It is two different concepts. Most gasses are collected through the process of heat and water. Perhaps they have more methods today of collecting gasses for storage but for yrs it has been through heat and water.

By igniting hho in a highly humid environment you get more output if a heat source is there. The heating of the water VAPOR and the flash of the burn from hho creates more gas.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 04:16 PM

Again it comes down to math. A certain amount of heat can release a certain amount of bonds in water.

Well I don't think anyone is going to try and dispute that one at least.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:20 PM

Like i said i understand how it is taught and used in todays world. I urge you if you want to understand what i am saying is that when the watt was first calculated by james watt he was using time already in his formula. There are several aspects to thin including the force of gravity itself also refer to equations that are derrived from a set amount of time. To then take that measurement and assign another time value of joules is false and is the basis of the current electrical minipulation that happens today. Further if you research where this need came from you will learn it was to bill consumers. It is all backed up by false math.

Then show the math that says your version of reality is correct. Otherwise, this entire statement is nothing more than gibberish. Seriously, you're verging on creating the Overunity Energy version of the Timecube here.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:32 PM

Again i already admit that you are correct in your understanding of what is known today as energy measurments. I have already been awarded the darwin award here in this thread so why not go for more.

Again from the wiki of watt

confusion of watts, watt-hours and watts per hour
The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed and hence is measured in units (e.g. watts) that represent 'energy per unit time'

The measurment of gravity itself is derrived from time also. Gravity is the basis for what james watt was measuring. Time was a factor in all these measurments from the start so the joule was a measurement of time within time. In reality the math will work out but the numbers will never accuratly represent the actual energy.

Your biggest clue that this was a money making scam is the word joule (JEWEL)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:44 PM

3.658kWh to seperate 1liter of water

so actually if that figure is correct it would be 1956.52174 J/s to produce 1l hho = ? continous watts

Nope. J/s is a power figure, not an energy one. Joules are energy. It takes a certain number of joules to electrolyze a certain amount of water. But J/s isn't an energy unit.

A watt is a rate?

In a sense - power is the rate of energy delivery.

The main problem i have is that a watt is defined as a joule/second and not only does that convey a rate

It is one.

...but also a time frame at which the rate is happening. I think much of this confusion is not only from my understanding but also from the need to screw people every month on their electric bill.

There's really not a time frame there. Dividing by seconds REMOVES the time component from a Joule. A Joule is a Watt-second. Dividing by seconds gives you (watts * seconds)/seconds, and voila! the time goes away, you're left only with Watts.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:51 PM

ok so the representations are wrong but the numbers are correct?

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:01 PM

so 1J/s would be 1JX1second

No, no. A Joule/second is 1 Joule DIVIDED by 1 second. That's the slashy part.

Here is the problem i see in a watt

1w=1j=1sec
by assigning a time value to the definition of a joule you are also assigning that same time value to a watt

A Watt is a Joule/second. A Joule is a Watt-second. Neither is a second by itself. A Joule is the amount of energy you transfer if you deliver 1 Watt for one second.

A metaphor...

Let's say you have the faucet on. You've carefully set it so that 1 cup per second of water comes out. We'll call a cup per second a Deadeye. In this unit set, a deadeye is one cup per second. That is a rate. So a Deadeye is a power number. That's how fast the water's coming out.

Now, in this unit, a cupful is like a Joule. There's no time in the cup, but that amount of water is a Deadeye-second. It's what you get when you run the tap at that speed and stick a container under it for one second. So an amount of water is like energy in this example.

So you can see a deadeye is the rate at which the water is flowing, not an amount of water. A cup is a deadeye-second amount of water, but it's got no time in the cup, just water. Because it's the amount of "energy" you get over a second when the tap's set for a "power" of 1 deadeye.

edit on 13-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:04 PM

ok so the representations are wrong but the numbers are correct?

Didn't look at your numbers. I'm still trying to untangle power, energy, and that pesky second thing for you. It really does make sense and it's totally consistent when you finally see the thing.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:15 PM

that is pretty wild. I had the thought of laying it out like you just did. Only when thought of it i was gonna call them dicks but i like deadeyes better. It is quite amazing enough to get my full attention.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:28 AM

Again it comes down to math. A certain amount of heat can release a certain amount of bonds in water.

originally posted by: framedragged
Well I don't think anyone is going to try and dispute that one at least.
So is 100 watts applied to one liter of water for one minute "a certain amount of heat"? Sounds like it to me. That's not enough heat to break the water bonds. If you boil water, that's not enough heat. If you turn your oven on at the highest possible temperature setting, that's not enough heat to break a significant amount of water bonds, even in the water vapor, if we are talking about just water.

Thermal decomposition

When water is heated to well over 2000 °C, a small percentage of it will decompose into its constituent elements
OK so "well over 2000 °C" will break "a small percentage" of the bonds, but even at 2800 °K we still see H2O in the spectra of some stars at that temperature, so even that isn't enough to break them all.

As I've already posted several times in this thread, adding heat can improve electrolysis efficiency by up to 12% or so, but that's NOT because it's breaking bonds, it's because the heat helps convert the liquid water to a gas state (sort of like boiling water, which doesn't break the H2O bonds to any significant degree).

You can change the above results with catalysts, and they can and do help but they don't really work miracles like giving you over-unity.
edit on 14-1-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 12:35 PM
Thank you all for your input in this thread. Believe it or no i am grateful and have gained understanding.

Now i will leave you with the statment that i have now found the method that stanley meyers used in his cells. The secret is wrapped up somewhere in this thread and i invite any hitmen from any group to bring their best game. After i duplicate his actions i will share.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:03 PM

Just remember - resonance isn't a mystical magical way to not put in the amount of energy you have to.

It just lets you put that energy in in smaller doses, over time.

But you still have to put in just as much, and usually more.

Meyers was a crank.

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:51 PM

After i duplicate his actions i will share.
I wouldn't recommend duplicating this action:

The car that ran on water

He once called Grove City police to his home and laboratory on Broadway to report a suspicious package. The Columbus bomb squad detonated the parcel, only to discover it was equipment that he had ordered.

But I'd like to see a car that runs on water so show your proof. This video claims the car runs on water in the title, but he's actually using solar cells to split the water, so the car is really running on solar power, using the hydrogen from an HHO generator as a way to store the solar energy. Unlike Meyers scam, this is not a scam, though most people are not going to build their own particle accelerators to do this:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:55 AM

edit on 18-12-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it

new topics

top topics

4