John Keely, what are your opinions about this man that lived over a hundred years ago?

OK but you didn't put the transducer at the bottom of a quartz bowl or tube.... this is how keely was supposedly getting results, as well as some scientist from the 60's.

For someone who's studied keely you certainly seem to know alot less than I do about this vital piece of keely lore after spending an hour researching it online.

So if 43 khz is out .... because your mister runs at 42 and doesn't cause anything ..... which is like saying because my car runs at 60 mph it should run at 600 mph then why not test the other 3 frequency combination I've already given you?

Personally I'm only halfway convinced that it would be a waste of time. You never really know afterall until you've tested it.

Hell if I had more time and money at this point I'd test it myself just to try it.

I'm going to repeat what I've been repeating for the last page and a half of this thread though. I'm still really disappointed that we have real live keely believers and they won't lift a finger to show that the man they believe in so adamantly isn't full of it. They'll throw you tube videos totally unrelated to what you asked for at you, but they won't actually show you the money.

reply to post by roguetechie


Don't expect others to do your job for you roguetechie, especially for free.

If you can't get simple stuff to work, then you aren't as techie as you might want to believe you are. Maybe you should start off the simple way and tune some sea shells just like Keeley did, and see if they rotate on a windmill type apparatus when the right tone is given.

Everybody knows that when you strum a violin string, that a tuned violin string nearby will start to vibrate at that resonance. Resonance is the whole key. Keeley knew what he was doing and what he was talking about, but you don't have a clue because you will never do any experiments; now do you?

If you have done some experiments besides flapping your jaw in disbelief, then let's hear of your experiments IN DETAIL; otherwise xxxx.

Unfortunately at this time I've got three projects ongoing plus a trigonometry and a chemistry class that are kicking my tail. Not to mention the fact that I'm not really a keely believer. I personally think that with a hundred years of time inbetween keely and now we should have seen at least some replication of Keely's work by now.

I Find it awesome that this is what the Believer argument has come to is personal attacks though. How about you do an experiment or two and make yourself unbelievably rich if you succeed? It's not like there is no incentive for you to do these experiments, if you did somehow succeed you'd have to be a fool to pass up all the business opportunities you would have just created for yourself. Heck if you succeeded i"d be the first person to congratulate you. As I've stated many times I WANT to believe that Keely was onto something real I really do. I just need some sort of tangible in your face nearly impossible to fake evidence.

But please feel free to attack me personally and post irrelevant youtube videos as your "proof" that Keely is the real deal.


Oh and for the record right now I"m engaged in a multitude of my own projects including a tesla turbine build, a LLoyd Tanner friction boiler experiment, a plastic extruder, a nitinol energy device, and one or two other small projects. So get off your high horse buddy. I'm working on plenty of stuff to try and make the world a better place.
Why aren't you doing the same?

reply to post by RussianScientists


Oh and for the record for someone like me who is at best tone challenged tuning sea shells would be murder. Also I fail to see how tuning sea shells and making a windmill out of them is easier than using a piezo electric transducer and about 50 bucks worth of components to disassociate water.

Have you built your windmill yet? care to show it to us? I thought not.... It's really easy to criticize others, it's not so easy to look in the mirror and realize our criticisms apply doubly so to ourselves.

reply to post by roguetechie


Firstly Keely never used a quartz bowl to dissociate water. Secondly he never used electricity,(it was over 150 years ago and electronics didn't even exist!) Thirdly his device when in operation made NO sound, Forth keely said he used etheric vibrations not sound vibrations. It is NOT as simple as you obviously think.

Below is an illustration of one of John Keelys early machines used to split water, as you can see it is huge and very complex. In later years he managed to reduce this machine in size to the size of a a football. The device was full of resonant tubes/discs and rods, the engineers/scientists who examined it in those days could not workout how the thing functioned even when keely stripped the machine to pieces in front of them. Keely could also use this force to levitate heavy objects which is why many people (including myself) believe he had discovered a new force!

yet another source saying keely did indeed use quartz bowls and these frequencies to disassociate water

used) and subsequent harmonics thereof to much higher frequencies. Keely first noted thisdissociation by placing water in a quartz bowl and then vibrating the bowl at these specificfrequencies using his tuning forks. The water completely vanished

I have found this assertions at basically every site supporting Keely I've run across. This information is taken from the biography of keely written by the lady that was his primary investor. I don't understand why you so vehemently deny this when it's a key claim in the Keely mythos. It also states pretty plainly that Keely was using normal tuning forks not Etheric vibrations to accomplish this. I"m really honestly trying to understand this but you are directly contradicting what primary sources of keely information say.

Ok so what are etheric vibrations?

Secondly you do realize you are contradicting yourself as you said the other day that it was harmonies of 3 notes combined....

Also an ultrasonic transducer is just one way to generate the frequency needed. You could very easily generate the same frequency with a tuning fork or other instrument.

I think you are MAKING it complicated so you can excuse yourself from actually trying it. You have contradicted yourself time and again throughout this conversation first refering to keely technology as simple and now that we're down to the wire and someone's actually asking you to prove this simple yet powerful technology it then becomes complex.

I'm trying to have a civilized discourse here and actually learn something, but instead you keep moving the goal posts.

I will say this though my want to believe that Keely may have discovered something amazing is slowing waning due to the way you and russian scientists respond to me and my questions. Especially when I contrast the behavior and mannerisms of Keely believers with say Tesla advocates.

Myself being a Tesla advocate I am working slowly but surely at building a testbed Tesla turbine with which to test and prove out Tesla's assertions. I"m hoping to eventually use it as my steam turbine for generating power from the LLoyd Tanner Friction Boiler I am working on. But here's the key, I'm actually working to prove that Tesla was telling the truth about his turbine by demonstrating a working model myself. I am not asking people to take my word for it. Nor do I attack people who disbelieve or think differently than I do. When people ask me for information about the tesla turbine I don't send them links showing tesla coils or T henry Moray's work. I send them links showing the Tesla turbine and giving the best information I can find.

To Contrast this with the Keely believers I've encountered in this thread, when I ask for links or supporting material I get Youtubes about everything from Stan Deyo to viktor Schauberger saying that they discovered similar things. While that's nice and all, and I'm a huge fan of schauberger myself, it doesn't teach me anything about KEELY! I asked about Keely not schauberger and stan deyo. When I asked you guys to show me water disassociation you instead showed me other things and or told me rudely to prove Keely's work myself. I just don't get it.

All I was really looking for was some education and ideally a proof showing Keely was indeed onto something amazing. Instead I got dissembling, misdirection, and angry attacks. I have given and will continue to give you opportunities to show me something convincing that proves keely was onto something major. If it's not water disassociation that you guys can show me then politely lead me to other experiments that will demonstrate key Keely concepts. Show me some of Keely's work. Heck even admitting that you don't have the funds or facilities or the expertise necessary to test the water disassociation would be a start.

Do any of these things and I'll be happier than I am now with the situation. You are the advocates of this man and his work. The burden of proof is on you not me. I eagerly await civilized discourse and shared knowledge.

Originally posted by RussianScientists

Everybody knows that when you strum a violin string, that a tuned violin string nearby will start to vibrate at that resonance. Resonance is the whole key.

As I stated before in the thread, there are requirements to resonating. A tuned violin nearby (if it's tuned to about the same note!) may resonate - but they're going to have to be the same length, about the same damping, tension and so on. What you won't expect to see is strumming a violin string, and resonating a hydrogen bond, for example. What do you see "resonating" with this water and relatively long wavelength sound at 43kHz?

Keeley knew what he was doing and what he was talking about, but you don't have a clue because you will never do any experiments; now do you?

I'm still waiting for a Keely-ite to do some well designed experiments to prove their supposition. I don't have to prove they don't work, you guys would have to prove they DO work. And it should be hokum free, and replicable, with a minimum of subjectiveness and confounders.

Originally posted by LUXUS

The frequency rang needed to split water may be in the microwave range but it is totally possible as you can see from this vid

13.66 and 27.33 MHz isn't microwaves. He's not even using radio waves, it's a near field setup.

reply to post by roguetechie


The reason why I say keely did not simply use a quartz bowl and a tuning fork to disintegrate water is because I have seen the instrument he used! First one he built was massive (as you can see from the pic I posted above) Later it was smaller and was called a compound disintegrator.
www.svpvril.com...

I have not contradicted myself either I have and continue to say 3 frequencies are needed!

As to the tesla turbine, loads of people have made them and they all work so rest assured Teslas credibility is intact

reply to post by roguetechie


You sure throw out a lot of excuses for someone that wants everyone to do his work for him. I'll bet that is how you do you homework and experiments also (someone else does them for you).

I've already done more than you will ever do in the experimental world.

Actually when I start a project even if it's a collaboration I tend to be the driving force pushing it forward... Right now the only thing slowing me down from doing more on my current projects is finances and crushing levels of homework from a college math class.

It's really funny how much vitriol you are choosing to spew at someone who was cautiously curious about Keely's work.... I can't imagine what you would have to say to a real debunker. Again you are resorting to calling names and personal attacks rather than just proving or disproving his work. HOnestly after my insanely bad treatment by Keely aficionados I'm leaning towards disbelieving in his work out of hand. Since in my experience the only time people get this defensive is when they either have something to hide or they know they are backing a losing horse.

In addition calling my integrity and competence out in this context is a major logical fallacy.

Honestly if that's all you got you should quit responding because it's weak sauce bro.

reply to post by LUXUS


See now that is interesting information... I feel we are having a dialogue now. Unlike Russian Scientists who is choosing to throw a hissy fit like a little girl you've chosen to just offer up information I didn't have. I can tell you I much prefer your approach.

This whole thing makes me very curious though as to how the quartz bowl myth got started if it's not in fact true.

Well if water disassociation is out what can you show me that proves keely was onto something? I'm open to suggestions here with the proviso that it must be about Keely himself not later actors that were on the same track.

As far as tesla's credibility being intact.... I wouldn't say that lots of people think the Tesla turbine is a failure of an invention.. I personally think it could be a big part of the solution to breaking the backs of the energy cartels some day. I'm looking to prove that by using a tesla turbine in conjunction with a LLoyd Tanner Friction Boiler to generate enough power to power my home. Needless to say on the budget of a starving college student progress is aching slow, but hey at least I'm trying.

Originally posted by RussianScientists
He had "perfect pitch hearing" that enabled him to enable things to animate or go into motion by SOUND.

I've been checking out the home page of the KeelyNet website where I see eight bullet points summarizing Keely's achievements. Three of the items listed correspond to modern day achievements in technology:

disintegrating quartz crystal using acoustics (rediscovered as shock waves currently being used to reduce garbage to a fine powder),

producing rotation by compound sound waves (patented in modern times by Panasonic as ultrasonic motors),

producing a glowing blue light in water using acoustics (now rediscovered as 'sonoluminescence'),

reply to post by donlashway


At about 1900 there were reports about men flying on platforms. Can't remember where I read that.