|
The following document includes posts by Alex Schiffer to the joecellfreeenergydevice group from Sept 5, 2004 thru Sep 16, 2006
Post #:2366 Hi Daniel, Nice to talk to a fellow experimenter. After an earful from Dan I am really looking for another disagreement. <g> Your Fluke 75 is working "just fine" because you are working on your cell and I am working on mine. Maybe your cell does not generate high potential differences or spurious pulses of RF signals. As I told Dan, I wrote down some advice that I gained from my experiments. Yet again, I am not arguing with you, Dan or anybody else. I offered experimental advice only. You talk about measuring resistance values issuing from a non- logarithmic, highly complex liquid and highly unstable `generator'. I was suggesting to be extremely careful with resistance measurements when there is a high probability of extraneous potential that is in series with the measured resistance. That is all, nothing else is implied, if you aware of these precautions, fine, other experimenters may not be. I have no idea as to how you can say that you are getting "ACCURATE dynamic capacitance readings" as your method is not the established way of measuring capacity. I will let the matter rest however, as any lengthy theoretical debate will only serve to confuse rather than help the group. Maybe you would be so nice as to present a paper to the group that contains these experiments? The interested parties can read the file and the others can ignore it. I have plotted nearly a million reading of the potential behaviors of the Joe cell. Yes, I am very familiar with the phenomenon. However I would not have the courage to use words such as "The obvious conclusion…". I am still stumbling along and to be honest I still do not fully understand the source of all the fluctuation in potential that the cell generates. Daniel, to me a `breeding' cell displays many effects, the potential is one of many, many side effects, none reflect the cause. Depending on the cell this effect can be large or small. Depending on the cell, Redox, Ph, oxygen concentration, spectrographic line shift, surface tension, bubble types, RF output, audio output, Bio effects, etc. can be a far stronger indicators of what the cell is doing. "Anything that manifests physically has a physical explanation". Not so, the effect can indeed be seen and used (actually misused) on the `physical', but the cause can be on a level as yet unmeasured and thus unknown to conventional scientists, you may prefer to call it superstition. Electricity is a perfect example, we use the effects, not many know the cause. The Joe cell is the same. Regarding the Mark 1 and 2 cells, no they were not long-term breeders. Regarding the Mark 1 cell, what makes you think that anybody ran a car on one? Dear Daniel, with due respect to your knowledge, until we `know' and can define what orgone is, it is hardly possible to say that you are just about sure that "it is definitely NOT orgone energy". I would be very interested for you to define orgone in scientific terms if you have the time, or do you agree with the definition that Reich laid down? In the spirit of sharing, Alex.
Post #: 2366 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Moeck <dmoeck@e...> wrote: <The rest of this post is about how I disagree with you, but it is <>nothing personal. <snip> Hi Daniel, Regarding your post 2365. Nice to talk to a fellow experimenter. After an earful from Dan I am really looking for another disagreement. <g> Your Fluke 75 is working "just fine" because you are working on your cell and I am working on mine. Maybe your cell does not generate high potential differences or spurious pulses of RF signals. As I told Dan, I wrote down some advice that I gained from my experiments. Yet again, I am not arguing with you, Dan or anybody else. I offered experimental advice only. You talk about measuring resistance values issuing from a non- logarithmic, highly complex liquid and highly unstable `generator'. I was suggesting to be extremely careful with resistance measurements when there is a high probability of extraneous potential that is in series with the measured resistance. That is all, nothing else is implied, if you aware of these precautions, fine, other experimenters may not be. I have no idea as to how you can say that you are getting "ACCURATE dynamic capacitance readings" as your method is not the established way of measuring capacity. I will let the matter rest however, as any lengthy theoretical debate will only serve to confuse rather than help the group. Maybe you would be so nice as to present a paper to the group that contains these experiments? The interested parties can read the file and the others can ignore it. I have plotted nearly a million reading of the potential behaviors of the Joe cell. Yes, I am very familiar with the phenomenon. However I would not have the courage to use words such as "The obvious conclusion…". I am still stumbling along and to be honest I still do not fully understand the source of all the fluctuation in potential that the cell generates. Daniel, to me a `breeding' cell displays many effects, the potential is one of many, many side effects, none reflect the cause. Depending on the cell this effect can be large or small. Depending on the cell, Redox, Ph, oxygen concentration, spectrographic line shift, surface tension, bubble types, RF output, audio output, Bio effects, etc. can be a far stronger indicators of what the cell is doing. "Anything that manifests physically has a physical explanation". Not so, the effect can indeed be seen and used (actually misused) on the `physical', but the cause can be on a level as yet unmeasured and thus unknown to conventional scientists, you may prefer to call it superstition. Electricity is a perfect example, we use the effects, not many know the cause. The Joe cell is the same. Regarding the Mark 1 and 2 cells, no they were not long-term breeders. Regarding the Mark 1 cell, what makes you think that anybody ran a car on one? Dear Daniel, with due respect to your knowledge, until we `know' and can define what orgone is, it is hardly possible to say that you are just about sure that "it is definitely NOT orgone energy". I would be very interested for you to define orgone in scientific terms if you have the time, or do you agree with the definition that Reich laid down? In the spirit of sharing, Alex.
Post #:2367 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, danwhh <no_reply@y...> wrote: > Hi > > A few things RE your post, some interesting and useful info there, thanks; <snip> Hi Dan, Regarding your post 2362. 1. You talk about short term "relative" changes in potential. Relative to what? Relative to the previous reading maybe? It would be just about impossible to apply the test leads to exactly the same measuring points and with the same pressure and with the same point of contact of the probes. Please remember that a metal is 'stainless' because of a protective oxide. Oxide is a very good electrical resistance. As I said, if we are dealing in many volts there would not be a problem. However any voltage under 1 volt is very prone to many forms of artifacts. Using the sides or the end of a probe really is splitting hairs. The probes are circular and the result is a point contact onto a rigid surface. 2. As a result of your attitude towards me, I rather not supply you any personal 'proof'. Talk to Witty, he had 1/2 inch sparks to his hands from the cell ( read previous posts ). As a rough calculation a 1 inch spark requires about 25,000 volts. Thus Witty had potentials around 12Kv. As I am not in a court of law I do not have to "document such assertions with reports of observation" to you, however I will share with the group anything that may help the group. Dan, you will always get more information from people with a pat on the back as compared to a fist in the face. <g> The aim of that part on my post was to warn people of possible damage to expensive test gear. I have lost 3 laptops, 1 CRO, 1 frequency counter, I spectrum analyzer plug-in and 2 digital meters. If and when I have the time to "document such assertions " I will do so. 3. You misunderstand what I said about the "shorted" turn. I said that a metal former "acts like a shorted turn". Nowhere did I say that it was shorted to the coil windings. Yes, it is obvious that there has been a misunderstandings. I apologize for my poor explanation. Let me rephrase what I said. An aluminum former is in effect a cylinder. As such it can be seen as a one turn very flat coil. If you slide a magnet inside a short tube (i.e. a flat coil), the effect is the generation of an eddy current that opposes the movement of the magnet. This principle is used to dampen the movement of the needle. Respectfully, please read up on how a moving coil meter functions. In passing, a good party trick is to drop a small rare earth magnet down the inside of a 1 meter length of copper pipe. If you choose the right diameter the magnet will take several seconds to fall out of the pipe. Moving on. I find it offensive how quick you are at insulting me, when I reality you misunderstood my mail. I sometime wonder why I bother to try to help others. Dan, I am not competing with you and your knowledge, I am trying to share the little I know. A few passing observations to clear up some of the "deliberate misinformation". -No the former is not shorted to the coil, but it is a shorted turn and thus capable of large current and the resultant heat (Watts). -A standard 5 amp fuse is designed to "blow" at twice its rated current. Thus a precision 5A fuse will blow at 10 Amps. If you are using a cheap no brand name fuse it may blow at a considerably higher instantaneous overload current. -You will find that there is a shunt in parallel with your meter coil as the actual meter coil cannot handle 5Amps. In reality all ammeters are voltmeters. -It is very ease to get any shade you like onto thin metal foils. Get some aluminum foil, wind it into a cylinder. Wind about 10 turns of thick enamel wire around this cylinder. Tap the wires across a 12 volt car battery. You will find that you can make many colors depending on how long you leave the coil connected to the battery. -Go to any university or technical school repair department. Talk to the technicians who repair butchered test equipment. Yes, it is really "extant". -Please note that we are no talking about cooking the meter over a long period of time, we are talking about a very brief high current overload. Believe it or not. With all humility may I suggest that your "investigation into the nature of orgone" is sadly lacking in completeness. "Someone", namely me is telling you what Reich recorded. Actually, who am I to tell you anything? The aim of my mail was to share with the group some of my findings, no more, no less. If you find difficulty in accepting what I wrote, hey, you know where the delete key is. Dear Dan, me having you "rather pissed off" is a good thing. Maybe you will realize that there are many views held on this planet by may people and maybe, just maybe you can learn something by trying to prove me (and others) wrong. In closing if you could precisely highlight areas that I have posted that contain deliberate "misleading and erroneous information" I will do my best to clear up the matter. Let me remind you that over 12 years I have done my best to release all my test information and experimental data free of charge to the world . Of course this data is my own experimental conclusions only, and I would dearly love you to tell me and the rest of the group any instances of deliberate misleading information that has "caused potentially dangerous/possibly fatal misunderstandings" as a result of my writings. Alex Schiffer 'ratbaitus' Ps. Sadly you trampled the intention of my mail into non-constructive debate. Reluctantly I came out of my shell, only to run head-on into you, Ouch!
Post #: 2371
--- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, danwhh
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> 1) RE voltmeter readings galvanic error.
< snip>
Hi Dan,
Regarding your post 2368.
> From these results I find your stated 0.5v possible error due to
> galvanic potentials to be rather on the high side.
My words, " these errors can be up to .5 or more volts", I did not
state "starting at .5v". I also made reference to two dissimilar
metals and not two similar metals as per your experiment. I referred
to galvanic action between the stainless steel Joe cell cylinder an
oxide coating and the brass/tin/silver connection of the probe tip.
Surely this is how you measure cell potentials? You will find that
the reading is higher.
> Firstly, after reading your reply I decided to try the experiment you
> described.
Again my apologies for my lack of clarity in what I was trying to
convey. The battery experiment was to show you that it is possible to
discolor aluminum with reasonable heat and not how your particular
former MAY have changed color. I explain how it normally occurs later
in this mail.
I would be the first to admit that as I have not seen your former I
have no firm view for your specific case nor did I say that I did. I
can however say that I have personally seen discolored formers that
resulted from short period high current overloads.
If you read my comment on the change of former color you will notice
that it was an "in passing remark". That to me is 'an of the cuff
remark' and is not presenting a scientific paper on your particular
case. For that I would require you to send me (or to any other
qualified laboratory) the meter in question. Destructive scientific
analysis would have to be taken and you would not have much change
from about $2,000 Aus for a reasonable test report and about $8,000
Aus plus for the whole 'Monty'.
You may be able to collar a university student who can run I through
the right department at no cost to you. I doubt it, as electron
microscope, emission spectroscopy, absorption spectroscopy, nuclear
magnetic resonance spectroscopy time is usually booked in advance.
However there is no harm in trying.
> take it you are referring to eddy currents as the former is not
> electrically connected to the coil or the input/output of the meter,
> and none of the DC the meter measures passes through it.
I am talking about transformer action and although there is no direct
physical electrical connection to the moving coil, all resulting
current flow in the moving coil does indeed "pass" through the
shorted turn (former), thus the induced field and the eddy current
effect.
> If so, all similar 5A meters reading 3-5A would glow blue from such
> induced eddy currents. They do not.
Of course not, you had a fault condition, I presume a non-standard
short period high current overload or similar. A 5A meter operating
within its design parameters would operate normally.
> do not change color let alone glow blue, stay permanently and
> entirely blue, or luminesce.
Dan, as said before I cannot speak about your meter with any
authority, I have not seen it. However my definition of luminescence
must be different to yours. A TV screen (old type) displays
luminescence because it is excited by the electron bombardment upon
the phosphor.
Are you telling me that your meter has some form of permanent
exciting mechanism that makes your meter luminescent? If so, in your
opinion where do you think that this bombardment is coming from?
> It must be clear by now that the blueness in my former was not caused
> by overheating effects as experiment (see above) has shown
Maybe in the case of your meter, but not in the case of many others.
As queried above, how do you explain this change of color?
> {I would reckon in practice unattainably high} eddy currents)
> ALUMINIUM DOES NOT CHANGE COLOUR.
> i.e. in a nutshell a functioning MU-45 5A ammeter coil is incapable of
> carrying sufficient current to cause it to heat to a point where
> significant discoloration of the former would occur.
Dan, with the information and knowledge available to you, you did all
that was possible, i.e. you came up with the above conclusion.
However if we introduce more facts the picture becomes different.
I presume that you are familiar with a step down transformer? A spot
welder is a reasonable example of a shorted secondary coil turn.
Let us assume that the moving meter coil has 1,000 turns and of
course the 'metal' former is one turn.
As you should be aware the coil (the primary in my example) is
sitting on the metal former (the one turn secondary). Both coils have
a metal core (the magnet and the pole pieces). For our purpose we can
say that we have a crude step-down transformer with a turns ratio of
1,000:1.
This is a guess ( as I have not seen your meter, but I presume that
the shunt is external and is between the two meter terminals.
Now let us image that the meter experiences a very brief overload in
the millisecond or less than a second range. (Please note, the normal
sate is a magnitude of slowly varying direct current in the moving
coil and thus no transformer action).
We will have the primary current magnified about a thousand times in
into the metal former (the secondary). Let us say that the primary
current is a very brief 1 amp. By transformer action the former would
experience a current of around 900 amps. This translates ( assuming a
resistance of 0.01 Ohms ) to about 8,000 Watts. That is the principle
of a spot welder.
You will find that as the former is a very, very thin tube that it
will experience a very rapid burst of very high heat, exactly the way
an induction welder heats. This burst of heat is of insufficient
duration to destroy the coil, or even permanently deform the enamel.
Dan, I am offering a plausible scientific explanation as to how
discoloration to a former can occur. It is equally possible that in
reference to your meter I may be completely in error.
I have noticed a deafening silence in your explanation as to how you
think it is luminescing a blue. I for one would be interested to
learn form you the true scientific reasoning on this fascinating
occurrence.
> With reference to your personal comments, if you find it insulting
> to have information presented by you being critically analysed with
> reference to established, proven facts I cannot help it.
Dan, I am in the scientific community, being CONSTRUCTIVELY
criticized is second nature to me. I welcome it, critical analysis is
how we learn. I would be stupid indeed if I did not expect to get
criticism when I write highly controversial material. You "proven
facts" are a bit thin on the ground.
ADDITIONALLY, you stepped well over the boundary of what is
considered "critical analysis" or even polite communication (in my
opinion).
I would like to quote (in part) your words, and you tell me where the
constructive "analysis" resides.
< ...makes me wonder what your grasp the principles involved... is like.
< ...perhaps your grasp of electrical theory etc is limited...
< ...This seems deliberate misinformation or worse.
< ...your grasp of electrical theory etc is limited...
< ...seems possibly to have originated mostly in your mind...
< ...and generally, rather pissed me off.
< ...Overall I view such information as pretty irresponsible.
Dan, the above from your own hand. In this mail you write:
<... I did not intend to insult you in any way.
Hmm, fair enough Dan, but if I wrote the above to you, how would you
react? Never mind, it is water under the bridge, I started out with
no animosity towards you or anybody else, I maintain that stance.
<... The "misleading and erroneous information" that you presented was
<... primarily the assertion that the phenomena I have observed with my
<... coil former is normal, typical, not unusual, and caused by
<... overheating effects.
I did not say "normal" or "typical", I said "not unusual", I maintain
that statement, because I (and others) involved in electronics on a
professional level have seen it. It was not misleading but may be
erroneous in your case, only because I not have sufficient data for
the specific case to 'pin the tail on the donkey'.
Sure, I make many mistakes every day, and I will make many more, to
me it is all part of the learning process. However I have never
deliberately mislead anybody and I challenge you to find one instance
in the reams of my postings.
<... Feel free to now attempt to "clear up the matter".
Dan, I have no intention of "attempting", or making this a 'duel to
the death'. Read my points above. As it is off-topic I am sure that
the group has had enough this is. As it is not constructive, I also
have had enough. I am happy to agree to disagree.
When you form a new group called 'Dan and his blue former' I will
definitely contribute information till the cows come home. At the
moment however, we are on Joe cell group and I am sure that we have
covered the topic to a sufficient depth.
The topic of orgone and how it 'runs' a car is definitely Joe cell
related and I will contribute what I additionally know in future
mails as this one is already too long.
<... Anyhow, I hope we can be friendly about all of this.........
Dan, I always have been and will continue to do so, the rest is up to
you.
Alex.
Post #: 2372 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Moeck <dmoeck@e...> wrote: > > I don't wish to argue with anyone here either. I just want > to express my opinions based on my observations and perceptions. > They happen to be quite different from your own but I am happy to > see our diversity and to have your participation in discussing the > pros and cons of each approach. > HI Daniel, Regarding your post 2369. I appreciate your thoughts and knowledge, and I would not say that our views "are quite different", in actuality we are climbing the same mountain, only on different tracks. <g> I am more that willing to share any and all results with a fellow experimenter. I may have spent nearly 12 years on the cell quest, but I may have also made the same errors for the same length of time. I am very receptive to your input and the accompanying knowledge. Thank you. <... I chose to throw them out to this group early on just to see if there <... was enough interest that someone would step up and offer to help by <... trying my experiments themselves. Apparently there isn't. I must be missing some mails, what help do you require? I am offering to help you, what do you require? What experiments do you want me to perform? Daniel, I am well aware of what it is like to be hit on the head by 'arm-chair experts', they are a total waste of time, doing it is the only way to fly. It is like trying to explain to somebody what a tomato tastes like. Hell man, eat one! <g> If your project has more merit than the present one that I am doing (cell behavior with ozone and/or a high potential low current fields), I will drop my project and help you. That is if I have not already done it. <g> <... I will probably be selling my information in the form of a book or <... video in order to fund further research. Please put me on the list for copies. <... Looks to me like you could easily spend a lifetime or 2 tracking all <... those variables and still not be any closer to actually knowing what <... causes a cell to "breed". Well said Daniel, well said. I have no problems in getting a cell to breed, it is now second nature to me. However. I have great difficulty in keeping one breeding and I have even greater difficulty in explaining it to the normal individual. It is this complete refusal of people to change their mindset that gives them a snowballs chance in Hell of ever getting a cell going. I know for I too was one of these 'set in academia', until the cell showed me the 'right' path. You may laugh, but it's a fact. <... In my own theory of cell function the actual source of OU comes from <... another dimension. Personally, I think "zero point" fits better than <... "orgone". Fully agree with you, as long as your definition of ZPE is the same as mine. <g> < Barry Hilton's book says Joe ran the first car with the Mark 1 and < that all of his cell designs worked. Is Barry wrong? I know Barry and I consider him a personal friend. However try as they may neither Barry or Ian Hacon have ever had a working cell. Yes, Barry is wrong, there is no video information of Joe running his Rover on a Mark 1 cell ALONE. You have to be very careful as to what is relayed second hand, third hand, etc. as to what Joe said. Even Joe has changed his stories over time to spice up the topic. Yes, I am very familiar with the video section where Joe 'explains' the huge pressure required to deform the plastic lid. ( Hint, it is very hot under a bonnet of a car ). Believe it or not only Joe could run a car on the Mark 1 cell. To be more specific the Rover ran from the cell AND Joe. Nobody else could run a Rover of the Mark 1 cell if Joe was not 'connected' to the car. Sorry Daniel, I realize that I am talking in the area that you call "superstition", but facts are facts. < Since you are the one claiming that the Joe Cell runs on orgone < energy shouldn't you be the one explaining yourself? I have tried to do this since 1998. <g> Remember that I have a whole list in my book that has the same characteristic as Orgone. If you like, I am claiming that Orgone (the life force) produces the 'right' conditions that enables a reciprocating motor to 'run'. Thuds the cell is the catalyst for the resultant power conversion. < am I not correct in saying that orgone is primarily associated with < cloudbusters and orgone accumulators? The Joe Cell seems to draw < energy from water and seems to accumulate it. In my opinion, Orgone is a component of the life force and there are at least two polarities. The life force can ( and does) accumulate in areas that it prefers. In descending order it likes water, air and organic matter. You may have noticed that these are the areas that are under the attack by the 'forces of darkness', as we too cannot survive without the life force (Orgone). People look at a cell as if it was a metallic object somehow completely removed from them, like starring at the toaster or washing machine. The sooner that people realize that nothing is 'solid' and that we are in a vey complex soup of many and wondrous frequencies and harmonics, the sooner they will realize that the Joe cell cannot be isolated from them or anything else. We are all part of each other, the cell talks to us and we talk to it. The fundamental construct of Creation is in balance, thus this zero point force seems to be inert and very placid. However, if you try to unbalance it, the whole power of the Universe is behind a huge 'push' to restore the equilibrium. The power available is truly stupendous and this available power in the wrong hands frighten the hell out of me. The Joe cell can act as a diode if you like, a one way gate, it can unbalance a small portion of the continuum (in its vicinity) and thus obtain the returning 'push' to perform work. We do not get something for nothing, but the energy that we obtain is so miniscule (related to the total energy available), in the right hands it can be classified as 'free' energy for our planet, for eternity. Thus as the Joe cell is a non linear device, the power that we put in is far less than the power we can get out. I too started converting cars, but I soon woke up to the errors in such an exercise (my opinion only), and now use I use the 'power' for what I call the 'right' causes. These are physical and spiritual 'food'. Thus I have not converted a car for many years, and have no desire to do so. I am happy to help others play with cars if they so choose, but only as a means to an end, namely their 'awakening'. You will find that all individuals that can convert a car to run on the cell do not do so any more. That includes Joe. Now there must be a moral to that story. And it is not the 'man in the black coats', etc. < It is just my opinion that, were Reich alive today, he would not < associate Joe Cells or HHG's with his own work. They are quite < different. Daniel, a cloud buster is a cylinder (or many cylinders) that contain water at one end, it is a form of a Joe cell and it does use Orgone (the life force), and does display all the typical characteristics of a good Joe cell. < First to run a car and then to explain, in easy language, how I did < it. Fully agree, and that is exactly when I wrote my manual, when I could demonstrate to a crowd that I could run a car on the cell. Daniel, I love people who DO IT. If I can help you in any way, please let me know, it has been a pleasure. Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2378 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, danwhh <no_reply@y...> wrote: > Hi Alex > Hopefully this occasionally off topic conversation can continue > without others on the site objecting. Hi Dan, I did say that I was happy to agree to disagree. I find the whole topic as non-constructive for a site specializing in Joe cell work and theory. As a reply to you consumes at least two hours of my time, I would rather use that time for material constructive to the group and myself. The whole reason that I avoid groups is that they are very time intensive. With limited time, I have a choice of hands on experimenting or sitting down for hours starring at a screen. I find that the hand's on approach gives more results. For example, I have spent at least 8 hours discussing with you your "blue coil former". We got nowhere fast, it has degenerated into who is right or wrong, yet nobody can be right or wrong as neither of us knows all the facts. Dan, it is your topic, it is your specialty, it is you BCF and your obvious passion. I have a just about no knowledge of your specific case, and I made the error of presuming that your case would be similar to overloaded test equipment that I have worked on, i.e. I categorized you BCF with what I knew. My opinion may be way off or maybe not, either way it is not of major importance to me, it was/is a theory only. Sure, you case may be and probably is unique. Unfortunately I am not in a position to be able to technically judge your individual situation. For all I know, invisible aliens may have hand-painted it, you offer no scientific explanation, in actuality you hint at things beyond present day scientific knowledge. In other words, my comment in passing was an opinion based on SIMILAR occurrences that I have personally witnessed. My comment was 'of the cuff' and thus MAY be wrong in your particular case. Man oh man, did I put my foot in it. How was I to know that this 'blue former' was so important to you, and that it deserves far more than a passing comment? You are sure that I am wrong, fine, now let's get on with life. I have no further constructive "passing" comments on your BCF former. As you think that a scientific evaluation would probably be useless as well, you former will have to join the large list of unexplainable phenomena that from time to time Mother Nature is so fond of producing. The only reason for this additional posting on the 'blue former' topic, is that I would like to point out what I think are inaccuracies in some of your conclusions and to 'mop up'. Regarding tempering colors in steel (not aluminum), you state: < ...in terms of established proven color changes of metals ............ blue is < reached at the very top end of the temperature range. ie many < hundreds of degrees celcius. The above is incorrect. "Established proven color changes" list blue at the bottom of the tempering color range. It is not "many hundreds of degree Celsius", less than 300C actually. The reason we have the convention that red is hot and blue is cold ( as in water taps,. etc.) is because red (dark red) is 400C. and blue (dark blue) is 287.8C Full blue is 293.3C, the highest tempering temperature is dazzling white at 1,600C. I agree that PURE aluminum would not display an overall blue shade (as in your case), but who is to say that your former is aluminum, let alone pure? As you are hesitant in getting the former analyzed, the matter will have to rest, as it is all conjecture. < ...... testing is not required for me to conclusively know that something < unexplained by accepted (or any other) "science" has/is occurring < with my BCF. Are you sure that you mean the above, for if so, you would have to be the master of all the worldly scientific disciplines, I tip my hat to you. <g> More seriously, all things are explainable, once we have ALL the facts. < such a phenomena has NEVER been recorded before in the available <literature, Dan you are now suggesting that you have read all the available world's scientific papers in recorded history (in all the languages ) as well. Please do not be so adamant about a system that is far bigger than your best attempt at investigating the matter. You would be surprised at the 'knowledge' data base out there, earthly and otherwise. A wise man only knows that he 'knows' nothing, in actuality the more he knows the less he 'knows'. A search in libraries and a surf on the web is a pittance to what is available. I said "......current flow in the moving coil does indeed "pass" through the shorted turn (former), thus the induced field and the eddy current effect." Your comment: < I would reckon that this is outright incorrect. Current as defined < by flow of electrons is unique to the conductor in which it flows. You may realize that I have tried to keep the technical topic in as may layman's terms a possible, thus the use of "passes". However if you read what I said in full, you will see that I was talking about a transformer and transformer action. By transformer action a potential is induced in the secondary (the BCF). As the BCF is the secondary (and a shorted turn) that is why we have a current flow. I would consider "pass" a fair enough non- scientific explanation for the transformer action and the result. In passing < big grin>, there in no flow of electrons, if you mean that the generator is some sort of pump and the electrons "flow" in one end and out the other. < ...As far as I am aware no such "fault" condition occurred, nor am I < aware of any evidence to suggest it did,...... I would suggest that you are (aware), as you wrote: < ...Especially as the needle was moving up and down quite a bit when the < glow commenced, and also had/has exhibited various oscillating < tendencies. Due to the hysterisis of the mass of the needle and coil, it (the meter) is incapable of indicating a millisecond or less overload accurately, but your meter did move "up and down quite a bit". This indicates (to me) an abnormal situation, especially if it was set up to measure current to a constant load. < ... furthermore I would reckon that you are in no position to < definitively state that this was the case. Never said that I was, I only took a 'near fit' guess, and boy oh boy do I regret it. <sad grin> < Current flow in former = 1000A (as 1A in coil at 1000/1 turns ratio < gives 1000 times current) Yes. I deliberately did not write 1,000A as I am getting to realize how pedantic you can be. The reason was to allow for transformer losses. < 1000/1 turns ratio means induced voltage in the coil former is 24 < divided by 1000 hence < Voltage induced in coil former = 0.024VDC Yes, only if it was 24volts and that you don't know. Your voltmeter is incapable of measuring a 1 millisecond burst of say, 1,000 volts, nor would your fuse 'blow' on a short period overload, as you have confirmed in this mail. Again in passing, a fuse is designed for current overloads, an arrester (gas discharge or similar) is designed for over-voltage protection. I presume you did not have one of these, so the input voltage can be anything we want to guess at, within reason that is. < Work done (joules) in passing current I at voltage V for t seconds is < given as: W = V I t < therefore W = 0.024 x 1000 x 0.001 = 0.024 joules ( J ) Yes, and maybe v =1, thus J=1. < Specific heat of aluminum is given as S = 0.902 J/g deg C No. Mean specific heat for 99 % pure aluminum at 20C is 0.214. < Specific heat formula is given as S ( J/g deg C) = work ( J ) / mass < (g) x change in temperature (deg C) < hence 0.902 = 0.024 J / 0.184g x temp change From memory your formula is for calories and not joules, however I do not want to dig through my reference books, I am sure that you would have checked your work. At a ROUGH calculation I get 6.07C. It really is no big deal either way. I have reservation with your calculations as you have taken a few short cuts. e.g. the m (mass) is defined as a cubical unit. A very thin foil tube has a completely different temperature gradient as compared to a cubic mass, that is why fuse wire is long and thin and not a chunky cube. The overload (or anomaly) duration I plucked out of the air, this is again a major variable. You state that you saw considerable movement of you meter. This sounds more like a train of pulses maybe even a form of external high power RF coupling with your equipment. Who knows, I don't. < Substituting this back into the above equations gives a temperature < rise of the coil former = 302.26 degrees Now you are cooking Dan, (pun intended), spot on with the blue tempering color (293.3C), well done. <g> < If you or anyone else can furnish proof or supporting documentation < for the belief that aluminum does or might turn blue at high < temperatures, lemme no. Not slow or constant temperature gradients, high speed temperature rises with the a corresponding reasonably fast 'quenching' temperature drop. < ...shunt would ever get to the point of delivering 1A to the coil,... I hinted at this in a previous mail, if the EXTERNAL shunt has a loose screw connection, or a dry joint or crimp at its fixtures, all things are possible. I have not seen the meter, I only have your words. < In summary, I cannot agree with your statement to the extent that you < have provided a "plausible" scientific explanation.... Definition of plausible: SEEMINGLY worthy of belief. Well Dan before you hit me with all the prose, my real life experiences SEEMED to match your effect. Seemingly now they do not, so I would suggest the we both follow our own individual belief system. As poor as my passing remark was, it is still far superior than no theory at all. It is a brick in the wall that may build the fact. Dan, I presume that you are familiar as to how scientific theory evolves? Somebody puts us a theory that stands on its merits until another one knocks it down. Better scientists than I said that man could never fly, get to the moon, etc. These scientists were not dills, they simply did not have all the information at the time. You have gallantly criticized my 'theory', but you have put nothing in its place, thus you only have criticism, not a theory. Dan, In the scientific world that is how the game is 'played'. Give me a constructive theory that is better than mine and sure, I will change my mind. Until then you offer me nothing, and as said before I am more than happy to disagree. < I suspect that if you have seen discolored aluminum meter coil < formers such coloration was probably caused by the deposition of < other substances...... And possible impurities in the coil former itself. Yes, I am happy with that theory as I never bothered to pull the coil of the former and having a good look. When you are flat out at work, you dump the meter in the bin, fit a new one and move on. < I have no "scientific" explanation for the phenomena nor have I ever < claimed to. Nor do I consider such an explanation to be currently < possible. Strongly disagree, you presume that you are familiar will all available analytical technology and theories on this planet, you may be a genius but I would hazard a guess and say that even you would have limitations. <g>. Good luck with your BCF Dan, I truly have no animosity toward you in the least, I rather like you and thank you as an active Joe cell group contributor. You are one of less than a handful that actually contribute. Even Joe sits back and lurks on this group, and never contributes even one sentence of written 'facts'. I wish you well and ever success with your quests. Now that I understand (in a very small way) as to how your brain functions, you can bet on it (if there is a next time) that all my i's will be dotted and all my t's crossed. I humbly suggest that you look at the forest and not only one tree, as you threw out the baby with the water in your analysis of my initial mail. So be it. Maybe we can go back to the topics of this group, after your right of reply of course. <g> Kind regards, Alex.
Post #:2379
--- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Moeck
<dmoeck@e...> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> Yes, I think we are climbing opposite sides of the same mountain. So it is
> great that we can compare notes openly like this to see how the grass looks
> on the other side.
>
Hi Daniel,
< So it is great that we can compare notes openly like this to see how
< the grass looks on the other side.
The pleasure is mine as well.
< I am just asking that someone else who knows what a breeding
< cell looks like please try adding a pinch of titanium dioxide to
< whatever "juvenile" water you would normally use in the cell. Then
< see if it performs better. (If you have a choice get "anatase" TiO2.
< I got what is probably "rutile" TiO2 at a ceramics hobby shop and it
< works ok).
Okay leave it with me, I will find a ceramic shop and buy some. What
do you call a "pinch" and in how much water? Does it dissolve readily?
I will set up a breeding cell on my laptop and plot minute by minute
readings for a week. I will then put your pinch of powder in the same
water and plot it for another week.
Regarding the m-state ormus, I have a friend in Australia that makes
it using salt, caustic soda and hydrochloric acid. He (and about a
dozen friends) drink this white powder residual. Garry claims all
sort of mysterious side effects.
Depending how I go for time, I will get some of this powder, add the
TIo2 and see if there are any differences. I don't promise to do this
second experiment, all hinges on how much time I have.
< I am building an experimental cell right now that incorporates what I
< think is the best of a handful of other designs, Joe Cell being just
< one of them.
Needless to say I wish you all the 'luck' that your hard work will
generate.
< But I also think the orgone energy in it only works when the
< chemistry is right.
Fully agree, may I add that the "right chemistry" includes all the
environment ( this includes the operator).
< Orgone may be the cause of the reaction, but there has to be a
< physical explanation that defines what the reaction itself is. I am
< working on the assumption that it is a change in the energy
< states of the O and H atoms.
The current flavor of the month is that it is nitrogen hydroxide. The
inert nitrogen is converted to act as a fuel. Before Dan gets me may
I say that it is NOT my theory, it comes from Joe. Dan, you have
Joe's phone number, go sick him Rex. <g>
As Nitrogen is by far the largest part of the induction charge into
the motor, the theory has merit.
For a long time it has been known that the cell produces a very hig
potential difference, I liken this to a potential as derived from a
Van De Graff machine.
To cut a long story short, Joe apparently found that he did not
require the cell to run car in his later experiments. He used the
stator portion of an old radios variable tuning capacitor
(condenser). This he placed in the intake manifold (upstream from the
carby) He connected a high potential (car ignition coil) to the
stator and used these plates as a form of ioniser. As relayed to me
this system was able to change the induced air-stream so that the car
could run from it.
Daniel, relayed to me third hand, I have not tried it but it looks
reasonably simple to implement.
< George Wiseman talks about the expanded state of water known as
< "Brown's Gas" here:
I am familiar with the man, have his books and I have also built his
largest electrolyser (120 plate). In my opinion not the way to go.
Regarding Browns gas, Yull Brown was a friend of mine whilst he was
in Australia, and we shared many theories on the Brown gas. He ran
into the same problems I did with the Joe cell, namely sometimes it
worked, sometimes it did not. He could not resolve the problem in
Australia. Went to the states and still could not work out the
gremlins.
Same old story Daniel, the 'Y' factor.
< Then it collapses back to diatoms in the engine cylinder causing the
< engine to run on vacuum.
Not happy with the vacuum theory. Absolute vacuum is a depression of
roughly 14 lbs/squre inch. Over the area of a typical piston there
would not be sufficient depression force to provide sufficient power.
If it was possible, by the same rules the inlet and exhaust valves
would be 'sucked' from their seats. They are not.
< Or, another theory is that an excess of protons, positrons, or ? are
< constantly climbing the tube to the carb where they instantly oxidize
< the atmosphere coming in (I need to find a scientist who can confirm
< this possibility). This greatly expands the air in the carb only and
< then when the spark hits it in the cylinder it collapses back to
< diatomic.
I am not sure as to what you refer to when you say that you oxidize
the atmosphere coming in, and why it should be a cause for a rapid
and large expansion. Daniel I am not nit picking, I am thinking aloud
as I muse over the theory.
I can honestly say that I have no concrete factual proof on how the
car runs on the cell, just as well or I would not be writing this.
<g>.
I know that an Australian billion dollar government complex full of
all the right boffins and equipment do not know either, and this
makes me feel much better.
Like Dan they wisely did not pull apart the Rover motor that
was 'borrowed' from Joe. Apparently it sits in the laboratory quietly
turning over with one of the cylinders painstakingly opened up so
that they can study the piston/bore area, (all this with the engine
running).
Additionally, as they are stumped they have been quietly visiting
people that have had successes. They lurk this site and I personally
get a friendly visit annually. If you are reading this, God bless you
B. and W., a shame that you are anal retentives, because as a team we
would have had it skun by now.
Daniel, I will swap more 'good guts' with you progressively. My mails
are getting too long. Thank you for sharing.
Kind regards,
Alex.
Post #: -- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, danwhh <no_reply@y...> wrote: > Hi Alex, > Hi Dan, Just a few points on your last mail. My reference to "spot on", etc. regarding the coincidence of the steel tempering temperature to your BCF color was supposed to lighten up our discussion, it was in jest, thus the grin symbol, i.e. tongue in cheek, just a bit of fun, no serious scientific comment intended. I did clearly indicate that the tempering colors were for steel and presumed that you would realize the implication. With your particular BCF case and with me having no first hand knowledge, I made a logistical error. Usually the dog bites the man, occasionally the man bites the dog. Your BCF does not SEEM to fit the usual pattern that I have experienced (going by your version of events and observations that is). Until you present a theory or scientifically analyze the former, the topic remains academic, a good subject to talk about on a cold night in front of a warm fire and a port in ones hand. Next comment, a moving coil former must be non-magnetic otherwise it would act as a magnetic shield. Thus you can have brass, copper, aluminum, the 3XX series of stainless steel, aluminium, organic materials and similar. Due to the low mass of the aluminum it is the preferred choice and thus is USUALLY used. I PRESUME that your meter is an 'el cheepo' Asian import made for the hobbyist market as sold at Dick Smith, Jaycar, Tandy, etc. In such meters it is very possible that the aluminum former will be recycled, and thus COULD contain all sort of interesting materials. There is a case of a high-rise building constructed (in Japan from memory) from recycled steel that had dumped radioactive material as part of the composition. This building has been a Godsend for medical academics who want to study the effect of long-term radioactivity on humans. Of course they did not tell the residents, used them for guinea pigs instead. An example of possible contamination in recycled products. < RE such a fault condition caused by voltage overload unlikely < considering its a regulated PS. (Also cell was regulating voltage as < well). I will not belabor the point Dan, however factually it is very easy to overload a regulated power supply externally with reverse input and by induction. This is a very common way of destroying the most sophisticated equipment in warfare. Also the reason that you do not use battery chargers on computer equipped cars, unless you disconnect he battery lead first. Put you power supply in a microwave oven, near a radar dish, under an induction welder, near a breeding cell or near a Tesla coil and then you will see ineffectual your regulation is. Your power supply cannot regulate currents or voltages outside the regulation loop. < A voltage drop (i.e. 1v) is hardly relevant when looking at < causes of temperature rise. Very relevant Dan, as suggested last time, learn how a spot welder works ( mine is around 1 volt), watch how it melts stainless steel and then tell me it is "hardly relevant" as a cause of a temperature rise. A typical electrical aluminium smelting plant is another good example of very low voltage and huge currents. Voltage is only potential Dan, we are talking about work done, and that is a combination of volts, amps and time, with many possible magnitude combinations. As said before, as you do not know what went wrong the topic is academic. Dan I am more that interested in learning from you and exchanging information with you that is ON topic. It would be hardly 'Kosher' to walk into a synagogue and start reciting the 'Our Father' or the 'Hail Mary'. <g> No, no hard feelings in the least, never were. As I said I like you. I like you because you DO (manipulative skill) and you THINK (cognitive skill). These attributes are very precious these days, I have a huge respect for people that try, no matter if they success or not. I just about cry when I see the new generation of teenagers with no hobbies or skills, goes for some adults as well. God helps those who help themselves ( no, not theft <g>), the new breed seem to think that God will also do to it for them as well. If you do come up with your own theory let me know, and if you like I will run through the sums with you. All the best Dan, keep on keeping on, Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2384 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, danwhh <no_reply@y...> wrote: > Hi again > Hi Dan, Re Post 2382. I compliment you for doing hands on research on the matter, well done. < ... BUT you could actually < honestly say that blue is at the top end < of the spectrum. (its just that's its MOSTLY down around 300 degrees). Hmm, reminds me of the girl that was 'just a little bit pregnant'. <g> We were talking about a discoloration of a metallic surface i.e. the tempering color change. At the other end, (beyond 1,600c) I am sure that you would have been well and truly aware that something was wrong, as it would have resulted in the melt-down of the meter, let alone the former. < ... symptoms I have had was the morning after it started glowing, I < felt like Id just spent about 3 months at an alpine health farm (I < kid u not), awesome feeling of fresh health that Ive never had < before. Ozone is released in some modes of cell operation, this is available in larger quantities on Alpine spas and would be the 'scientific' explanation. A more 'lunatic fringe' explanation is that your cell was breeding and 'pumping' out orgone (life force). Thee cell was recharging you, as your existing level was low. I would opt for the second (less rational) explanation as I am familiar with the by-products of the cell and the effects upon me. You would have read my note on how a 'hungry' cell nearly killed Robert W. This is the reverse process of what you experienced. (Lunatic fringe rave). The cell generates (in some modes) a very high potential, this is the cause of the 'silent discharge' that makes the O3. ( Scientific reasoning). < ie if the PS regulator is set at say 32v and I pull highish current < with the 2217 (or Joecell) for too long (periods vary but sometimes a < matter of seconds the voltage will (often) drop a to say 20 or so < ries) no matter how you try to adjust it back up or whatever, < disconnect and it snaps back up Most modern IC regulators 317, 338, 75xx, etc. have in-built over- current shut down. If the regulator is overloaded it will reduce the current output to the point of turning off on a short circuit. As soon as the regulator cools down it will revert back to normal regulation. On some regulators that employ 'crow bar regulation', you must remove the load before the regulator will recover. A short period of overload does not have time to heat up the device, especially if it is attached to a heat sink. However the internal junctions do get hotter than normal and shut down protection is instigated. The solution is obvious, use the regulator (338, 317) to control one or more 2N3055 transitors and let these do the work for you. Many a circuit in the now defunct Electronics Australia or the Silicon Chip magazines. I have made many versions of this design, and the one that I use for testing car related equipment (13.4v) will regulate at 60A with no problems. Just a great stack of 2N3055's in parallel on two fan cooled fir-tree heat-sinks, with one 317 controlling the lot. On post 2383, < The meters had BLUE COIL FORMERS. If you imagine that I am rolling on the floor laughing, yep, you are right. <g> Again, please note, IN MY OPINION, this is nothing unusual, very common in fact with the better quality meters. Over a period of time, aluminium tends to grow 'whiskers'. These whiskers tend to jam up the movement (over time that is), and various methods are utilized to prevent these 'dendrites' from causing problems. Varnishing is one and anodizing is another. An obvious question, do you recall what color your former was when you purchased it? Maybe you never noticed that the former was blue and one day you 'saw' that it was. Reminds me of a case that I had. I was down the street with my wife one day, (I go down there probably 5 times a week) and I noticed a 'shop'. Asked my wife how long has it been there. "Oh, about 4 years" was the reply. <g> < And Im pretty sure they dont glow or throw blue sparks (like to see < them try and rip that off if in fact ripping off is whats going < down). Don't seem to remember you writing anything about you meter being able to "throw blue sparks". Now that sounds a bit more like a Joe cell topic. Would you care to elaborate, or shouldn't I ask? <big grin> < So there you go eh wot? Yup, we learn every day, and what a beautiful thing that is. Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2389 Hi Dan, re post 2385. Are you sure that the '2217' does not draw more than 5A at turn on? Is your series connected ammeter accurate? You can check this by comparing a voltage reading across an accurate 1ohm resistor connected in the same place that you had the ammeter. An accurate digital voltmeter will let you know soon enough if the ammeter is accurate. < regulators arent meant to drop under load, I gather). No, they will not, but a regulator working on its maximum rating (LM338 running at 5A) does require a heat sink. An under-rated power transformer, under-rated diodes, insufficient filtering capacity, thin wiring, insufficient contact area clips, a loose fuse holder and similar will vary the voltage/current available Before and after the regulator. < no longer normal orange/yellow but bright blue. Sorry Dan, I don't follow your reasoning as to how a "normal" spark should be orange/yellow. We can vary the color of the spark with the material, current and voltage used. A normal test for faulty car coils or the carbon leads it to look at the spark at the sparkplug points. An orange/yellow spark signifies problems and a blue/white spark signifies all okay. The same can be seen it Tesla coil work, a thin blue/white spark is plenty of high tension all okay, a fat orange/yellow signifies a current/voltage limitation somewhere in the works. Thus I would say that a blue spark is desirable if everything is working 'okay'. The spark color can also be changed by the different types of materials used for the gap. Would you please care to elaborate on this "normal" orange color for a spark? If somebody else 'sparked' the leads etc in your presece do they produce an orange spark? If you now held their hands do they still produce an orange spark? If you now took the leads from them do you get a blue spark? Fascinating stuff indeed. < ... "phosphene" I sometimes see floating around or on/near things... Please read 'The Mysterious Odic Force' by Baron Karl von Reichenbach. This will make a lot of things clear to you. < and credit me with some powers of observation will ya,... Done. <g> < And seriously, when my BCF started GLOWING it was the GLOW that < first attracted my attention, ie a blue/white bright light emission, Dan, I have seriously believed your observation from the start. I am merely trying to make sense of the anomaly. As mentioned before, there is an answer for all so called mysteries, we just have to study and understand all possible variables. As a team, and as a group we have a far greater chance of resolving mysteries as we can pool our combined experience and knowledge. < Its this sort of fact that made/makes it blindingly obvious (to me) < that something unexplained was going on..... Yes, there may be, but how do we go about explaining a phenomenon that the majority of the academic community will not accept? Let us take the case of UFO's, now as far as I am concerned their existence is 100% proven. Yet like your BCF unless we supply the evidence and have this evidence analyzed by a well known PUBLIC instrumentality, what chance have you of gaining any acceptance. The Joe cell shares a similar fate. I have had a car running on the Joe cell in front of a team of top mechanics. They saw me install it, they personally checked for hidden fuel lines, saw the engine stop when the petrol was turned off (without the cell), etc., etc. At the end of the demo they walked away saying that it was not possible and that it therefore could not have worked. < I am pretty sure however that I do NOT give a !%#@ about alleged < "DOR" and (no offense intended) consider its a symptom of a lack of < personal characteristics in certain areas. BUT that's just me, < only a personal opinion and theres a few things in the world < generally that I also dont give a !%#@ about for similar reasons (at < least I aspire to such a condition). I also have strong opinions in various areas. Maybe we differ as to the fact that I am always willing to change my mindset for a better fit to the ultimate answers. DOR is a very good example, it really does not matter if you believe in it or not. Look at the sky above a dense industrial area, the black gray color of the clouds is DOR. Go to any depressive area like a mental institution or a neglected home for the elderly, the feeling you get is DOR. No Dan, DOR is not "alleged", it is a very true and sad outcome of the laws of Mother Earth. My opinion of course. Regarding 2386. < Im not gonna offend anyone with the crack about DOR, perhaps < rather than writing "a symptom of a lack of certain personal < characteristics in certain areas" I shouldve written "no problem with < enough of a certain characteristic" or something similar. And I < suppose that with enough of that certain characteristic NOTHING would < be a problem eh wot? I can see where you are coming from Dan, unfortunately no individual can separate himself from the rest of us in this 'nest' we call Earth. As a totality we are responsible for the reality, it would be nice if we could disconnect ourselves from the 'original' sin by simply stating that we do not follow that 'football team'. Yes, DOR is a result of 'negatives', let us try our best to save the blind and suffering by example and effort. Getting rid of the ultimate source of accelerated death on this planet (radioactivity), would be a good start. Kind regards, Alex.
Post #:2392 Hi Dan, Re post 2390. < Note that the BCF series meter doesnt work properly since about < (approx) late 2002 when I was using the PS to "flash" Joe cell parts < before reassembly. Not a good idea to apply repetitive short circuits on the output of any power supply (or power amplifier), even if current regulated. More importantly, a 5A PS does not have the 'balls' to "flash" stainless steel. You need at least 50A or preferably a car battery or similar. Other readers please note. < Get a 12v battery with copper wire off the terminals, short wires < together to see "normal" spark colour like Im on about (unless you < too have been altered by the field thru your interest in same). Okay just did as requested. I used a 12v fully charged car battery and shorted/stroked two copper wires together. Result was a blue/white spark/sparks. Replaced one copper wire with a piece of carbon rod, the result was an orange yellow/ spark/sparks. As mentioned in the previous mail that is what I would call "normal". I would dearly like to read your result of the suggested small experiment. If the spark color changes when you and somebody else try exactly the same procedure in a short period of time, you should ring the Australian Skeptics Society, and you could make yourself some very easy money. The Society will have a qualified person (familiar with the art) analyze and document the occurrence. < Cool, I'll have to track that one down. Is there a URL for it? You are a classic Dan. <g> The book was printed by the Aquarian Press in 1977, ISBN 0 85030 138 6 (UK), ISBN 0 87728 323 0 (USA). I would try Amazon.com. It is only a little book, I am sure that the cost will be well worth it. Of course you can try a good library. For a person in your position may I suggest that it is a must. < Mostly trying to point out that unexplained is unexplained. So be it. < Those who wilfully ignore and refuse to believe the testimony of < their own senses are hardly worth trying to "win over" in my opinion. In my opinion you never give up. An attitude problem is changeable, and I would not want anybody to "miss out" due to ignorance or simply being in the wrong place at the right time. If you are 'into' religion, the above should make sense to you, for how many times have we "willfully ignored" and scorned the Universal One? If you are a parent the above should make sense to you, for how many times do children "willfully ignore" some very good and superior advice? How many times does a smoker, a drug addict, an alcoholic,. a criminal, etc. "willfully ignore" some very good advice. No dear Dan, if we can help we never give up, ever, (my opinion only). < They are not the people running cars without petrol (etc etc) now are < they (and perhaps with such attitudes how could they ever eh wot), so < they miss out, too bad. And as your report indicates, not much point < trying to win them over eh wot, it hardly seems to work even with < such conclusive demonstrations. Precisely my viewpoint back in 1999. However if we look at the situation a bit deeper, I (for one) realized that running the car on the cell was not the way to go. Don't get me wrong, if others want to do 'it', fine I am willing to help. If however we look at the forest and not the tree, a far more important use for the cell pops to the surface. That is where I am at. < !!!!!!!BELOW RESPONSES: PERSONAL VIEW: WARNING!!!!!!!!! < And my opinion based on knowledge, "Laws of Mother Earth" actually do < not exist, Law of creator of earth (and the rest) is only valid/ < actually extant law. Yes? How do you separate the "Law of the creator" from the laws of Nature (Mother earth)? Is it not the one and same thing? Surely the 'breath of God', the life force, orgone, etc. applies to everything? Thus how could the laws of nature be contrary to the desires and so the "Laws of the creator", creator of the laws? The "Laws of Mother earth" are the constant desires for the propagation of all species and the retention of the 'balance' that was given to it. My point is that it is only mankind that had deliberately upset this balance by artificial means. Yes, we could say that even this interference was accounted for by the 'creator' and it thus could be called a Natural law. With all my imperfections, I would hardly be qualified to judge, but from my humble and insignificant viewpoint, the status quo does not seem 'right', something seems to be 'wrong'. End of sermon, I will now step down from my podium.<g> < "only valid law" as mentioned above requires adherents to separate < themselves from non adherents. With all sincerity friend, would you care to expand on what "only valid law" means? "valid" by whose standards and how come you have this 'knowledge'? By the way it is not off topic, as the Joe cell is intimately involved in just this subject. < Originator of abovementioned law is only one responsible for reality. < (as I have heard). As I have heard, we are all responsible for what we call reality. Correct me if you think that I am wrong. < 'original sin' concept as taught by man (ie certain organisations eg < 'football team') is man made bull$#!%, not confirmed by < abovementioned only valid law. Current 'football team'/s also man < made bull$#!%. Fair enough, your viewpoint and I am interested, (hope the rest of the group is as well). As you stated, it is the characteristics of an individual that seems to play a large part in the cell operation, (I agree by the way). Again I ask if you would care to expand on the "only valid law". I am all ears, (like an elephant <g>). < I am willing to accept correction, abovementioned law requires it. < This is always with reference to the truth. < No truthful reason for correction = no correction I am getting more and more intrigued, what "truth" are you referring to? < NB: My personal views are based on knowledge and experience, and < personally I know them not to be merely views and opinions, but < actually truth. I aspire to this condition, in any case. As said, I would love to learn more about this "actully truth". < I do not wish to denigrate your opinions, beliefs or words; the above < section merely represents some of my views on some of the things you < brought up. Hope you are not offended, and perhaps this will give you < some insight into my "mindset", (may prove useful for corresponding < with me or comprehending my stuff). I am not offended in the least Dan, love to hear your view, love to learn from you, love to find out how you tick, as obviously you are 'different' as proven by your unusual adventures. I am forever trying to work out a way of making the Joe cell 'changeover' available to all and sundry, and not only something available to people with a specific mindset only. What is written down on this website is available to all and forever. Some who read may laugh, scorn, whatever, but there will be somebody that will understand, fit the missing link and advance mankind to the next step, hopefully soon whilst mankind is still here. <sad grin> Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2403 Hi Daniel, re post 2397. I have purchased a bag of titanium dioxide from a ceramic vase manufacturer. He had no idea as to which type it was and as you said it is probably not that important. < I could tell you to use 5 to 10 mg. per liter but it's really < pointless for me to guess what would be best in your case. I am < working from the hypothesis that your water there in AU works well in < cells because it is already high in both TiO2 and ormes......... I would like to comment on the above. It has been known for a very long time that the 'life force' has a great affinity for water. I have spent many years working with water and I have noticed that all my experiments with any water always have a cyclic variation. The main variation is tied in with the radiations from the sun, but there also many other cycles of a smaller magnitude interposed with the main solar cycle. To give it a name I have called it the breathing of the water, not to be confused with the breeding of a Joe cell. I have tested many types of waters in different containers, temperatures and locations. Without fail they all breathe. This variation is never more than + or - 500 m/volts. Sometimes it is all in the negative millivolt region, other tomes it is all positive and yet other times it can swing from positive to negative and vice versa. It seems that stream, river and lake water has a greater breathing voltage than tap or distilled water. I have tried laboratory grade triple distilled water and even this showed the same variation but of a smaller magnitude. The reason that I have spent so many years on this part of the testing was the great difficulty in separating the breathing and breeding voltage variations. Part of this comment is aimed at other readers. Be very wary of this breathing artifact, especially when you are attributing small voltage changes to some form of breeding activity. Not so. The other is to tell you that even triple distilled water will display voltage variation as part of its 'normal' reaction to the solar radiation. I would doubt very much if TiO2 would directly influence the breathing part, but as you suggest it may affect the breeding phase. < So if my hypothesis is correct at all you may see no improvement by < adding any amount of TiO2 if you already have enough. My 'slack' time window is now gone, but I will do some tests for you as promised ASAP. In passing I have made a cell that had the 2" and 3" cylinders made out of pure titanium. The result was different bubble activity and that was just about all, no significant change to the breeding activity. < ... as the chlorine tears up S.S. quickly. The beauty of 316L and ebonite, just about bullet proof. <g> < I assume you have looked into the similarities between the Joe Cell < and the Papp engine? Yes, and the differences. <g> the Papp 'generator' does not require air, a car running on the cell must have air. I know that somebody started a rumor to the effect that the air intake could be blocked off, but in my experiments that is not so. As previously reported, a very interesting effect does occur, namely that the accelerator (throttle position ) now becomes a mixture control. The accelerator position (thus the air mix) is critical, and it is not unusual to back off the accelerator only to have the engine speed up. The right quantity of air is critical. I have spent weeks reading and re-reading patents 3,680,431, 3,670,494 and 4,428,193. He states quite clearly that the secret is not in the engine ( a 4 cylinder Volvo in his first attempt), the secret is in the fuel. More correctly the secret is in the mixing rig. Now this mixing rig has all the characteristics of a live Joe cell, e.g. spurious high voltages, RF interference, 'blue' flashes, etc. Papp was quite happy to sell the rights for the motor to anybody as long as he was the sole distributor of the inert gas mix. < Maybe the Joe Cell somehow creates an instantaneous expansion to < Brown's Gas which fills the cell and tube and then transmits a < specific energy to the carb ........ On the above, many people miss Yull's reference to an EXACT H2O mix. He told me many times and I always said "Yeah, what is the big deal?". As my mind was polluted with normal academia I always believed that there was only 'water' and that it had been proven countless times that by the classic electrolysis experiment it would always disassociate into H2O. To cut a long story short I purchased the classic 'H' shaped water 'splitter' and lo and behold my education began. In short EXACT H2O (by electrolysis) is not normal at all, it is only normal if you use some electrolyte and/or tap water. At last count there are at least 36 different types of 'water' and with more to be discovered. I am glad that we are on the same path but with different methods (like American and Soviet space research was), we will find the answers far quicker. I am not into 'adding stuff' to the water, far to many resultant variables. I am more in finding a method of keeping the damped oscillation of a breeding cell active. I am sure that our tracks cross many times on the climb up the mountain. < I also heard that it only worked when Joe used a reverse-wound < ignition coil, (something I wish I could find). No problems Daniel, the above is a described incorrectly. Joe meant that he was using an ignition coil made for positive ground vehicles. In his case he used an old Mercedes Benz Coil (from an old 220S/SE I believe). Not important, any old positive ground coil will do the job and there are literally dozens in any large auto wrecker. The polarity of the secondary voltage is what is 'reversed' to allow for the different potential that the engine block is at. You can test this by interposing a carbon pencil in between a distributor lead and the spark plug top termination (engine running). The stream of little sparks should be towards the plug and not back toward the lead. < I definitely believe in the 'Y' factor, but I refuse to subordinate < my mind to it. I prefer to see it as the edge of our present < collective understanding, soon to be understood better. Could not have said it better myself, right on brother. <g> < So, haven't there been at least some cases where the Joe Cell < appeared to be running the engine on vacuum pressure? Not to my knowledge, if you have more information would you care to elaborate? < If you advance the timing 80+ degrees aren't you then firing near < bottom dead center? Yes and no. First of all we have to be specific if we are talking about distributor or crankshaft degrees. As you know the distributor rotates at half crankshaft speed, we have to be careful to compare apples to apples. Here I will refer to crankshaft degrees. I will also talk about an 'average' motor as you again will know that there are many different camshaft possibilities. In an average motor at 3,000 rpm the ignition occurs around 35 degrees BTDC and the burning cycle is completed with the opening of the exhaust valve around 110 degrees ATDC. In actuality the maximum push due to leverage of the crankshaft stroke is at 90 degrees ATDC and would be the optimal spot for a force that was propagated instantly. Thus 80+ degrees ATDC is still in the burning cycle of the curve. The advance or retard of the distributor timing around TDC is tied up with the characteristics of the combustion chamber (flame path), rotational speed and burn rate of the fuel. To me, the change in ignition timing is a very major clue as to what is happening in the motor. To need so much advance signifies a 'fuel' that is just about instantaneous in the release of its energy, and this is a very good indication that the car is indeed running on the cell. < I used to wonder about vacuum pressure opening the valves too.... < We still seem to need the camshaft to open the intake valve when the < piston is creating it's 150 lbs. of vacuum. Only because of the very high on-seat pressure from the valve springs. An inlet valve spring is typically around 80 pounds 'on-seat pressure'. If we assume that the valve is around 1.5 inches diameter, we can easily see that 14.5 lbs per square inch would not lift it off the seat. In passing there are many engines that use flapper vales and these require no camshaft, the depression does the job. < I didn't know the gov was giving you free annual physical checkups. < Why do you allow it? Daniel, dear friend, this lifetime I made the error of making myself vulnerable, I have a wife and children, my error is in loving my family. What would you do if somebody in authority told you, "You have a pretty daughter, it is a shame what battery acid is going to do to her face". For obvious reasons I cannot freely chat to you further on this 'pleasant ' topic. Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2404 Hi Dan, re post 2399. < So you reckon. Friend, I can only give you my opinion, no absolute facts. Sometimes these may not suit you, as some of your opinions do not suit me. No problems, agree to disagree and let us get on with the quest. Re post 2402. < All the best anyhow, thanks for taking the time to respond & all with < the posts over the last few weeks n that generally. Very interesting, < cheers. Thank you Dan, I do appreciate your suggestions and views, they are all 'on board' in the filling cabinets in my mind. It is these sorts of inputs that eventually change the mindset of an individual, me included. All the best, kind regards, Alex.
Post #:2406 Hi Daniel, I have completed the TiO2 test and have enclosed the details. The test result is enclosed. I have uploaded three gif's, named Cond1.gif, PreTiO2.gif and PostTiO2 the groups Photo section. I have also looked up the analysis of Joe's water. The analysis was performed by the Australian Laboratory Services and the Ti quantity was 20.5 mg/Kg. The test method was 'ICPMS semi-quantative periodic scan' method. Kind regards, Alex. ************************* TEST: No. 13-225. Performed during period commencing 20-09-2004, Melbourne, Australia. AIM: To measure any changes in REDOX values in a Joe test cell that resulted from the addition of a small quantity of TiO2 powder. THEORY: In strict scientific terms, the aim was to measure potential changes that result from the periodic daily variations of a liquid in a specialized container. I broader terms, my aim was to see if a Joe cell of a known behavioral pattern would be influenced by the addition of a chemical that was not part of its normal make up. The cell will try to eliminate any chemistry that it considers to be impurities. It is well known to the cell experimenter that the cell will try to remove any 'impurities' that it does not 'like'. Additionally it is well known that there is no test equipment that is available, (to the best of my knowledge), that can directly measure the changes in Orgone and that is also accepted by the scientific community. My theory was to try and plot a side effect of this 'invisible' Orgone and so use the side effect measurements as some sort of indicator of what the life force (Orgone) was doing. Over many years I have found that the REDOX measurement serves as a very good and reliable indicator of Orgone changes in water. As there is no electrical connection with the test cell, the REDOX method is one of the least intrusive. The observation of REDOX readings over many years has familiarized me with the 'normal' artifacts and I can 'read' what the cell is doing with repeatable accuracy. The addition of chemicals to a breeding cell MUST cause a change, the question was will it be beneficial or not? That is the reason for this test. METHOD: A known breeding test cell was employed. A known water was also employed. After the cell was conditioned, a reference run was performed. TiO2 was added to the water for the final run. A minute by minute REDOX reading was taken via a recording instruments and computer. Three graphs were plotted form these runs. EQUIPEMENT: The water employed was spring water with no extra additives. The water was collected from a mountain spring in a Pyrex container. This water was allowed to settle. After a week, 2.5 liters was poured into the test cell. The water was allowed to settle in the test cell for half an hour before the tests commenced. The test cell was a 'standard' four cylinder cell. 1", 2", 3" and 4" cylinders, 7 inches long and made from 316 stainless tube were placed inside a 5 liter glass container. The connection to the inner and outer cylinders were made with 316 stainless steel straps and both the straps came out vertically above the cylinder pack, namely the glass cell did not have a drilled central termination out of the bottom of the cell. The insulators were cut from smooth black oxygen hose. The measurement equipment employed was standard to this type of measuring application and would be familiar to those versed in then arts. TEST: Run1. After the initial addition of the water into the cell, I took some readings. Conductivity = 37.7 micro Siemens. pH = 7.16 @ 12.0 C, REDOX = +121 mV, Dissolved Oxygen = 8.8 ppm. I applied 140v @ .520 mA for 30 seconds and then removed the power supply leads. After approx. 24 hours the results were plotted. Cond1.gif is the result. Run2. After the conditioning run I took the following readings. Conductivity = 45.5 micro Siemens. pH = 7.81 @ 12.5 C, REDOX = +36.9 mV, Dissolved Oxygen = 9.0 ppm. I applied 140v @ .520 mA for 30 seconds and then removed the power supply leads. After approx. 24 hours the results were plotted. PreTiO2.gif is the result. Run3. After the reference run I took the following readings. Conductivity = 51.6 micro Siemens. pH = 7.14 @ 16.7 C, REDOX = 28.8 mV, Dissolved Oxygen = 9.1 ppm. I applied 20 mg of TiO2 and agitated the water until the water took on a uniform turbidity. I next applied 100v @ 500 mA for 30 seconds and then removed the power supply leads. PostTiO2.gif is the result. The final readings after the completion of the test are. Conductivity = 57.4 micro Siemens. pH = 7.38 @ 14.7 C, REDOX = -36.7 mV, Dissolved Oxygen = 8.9 ppm. OBSERVATION: Cond1.gif. It can be seen that the plot is very smooth i.e.,lacking the 'spikes ' of the next run. This indicates (to me) that the cell is not very responsive to the external 'world' and is more 'interested' in internal 'house cleaning'. This graph has all the characteristics of a 'seeding ' cell and is exactly what is expected on the first run of a new water/cell combination. You can see an attempt at breeding at about the 116 and 469 minute mark. PreTiO2.gif. A good example of a 'breeding cell'. You can see how the spikes indicate the cells 'interest' in external activities, and it is now very sensitive to positive and negative stimulus. You may also notice that the activity is still very strong after the 24 hours and is not falling off like the previous run. This is the type of cell that Daniel wanted to see the result of the addition of TiO2. PostTiO2.gif. Well, there you have it. As soon as I added the TiO2 the cell 'died', you can see that for yourself on the graph. It vainly tried to recover by eliminating the 'impurity' between the 247 to 534 minute mark. Sadly it could not cope with the task ( as it had no further charging 'stimulus') and it slowly died. At this stage you have to throw away the water ( and sometimes the insulators ), and clean and polish the cylinders and start again. SUMMARY: In my type of test cell, the addition of TiO2 killed a 'breeding' cell and thus I cannot recommend it for my applications. Alex Schiffer, Melbourne, 22-September-2004. *************************
Post #: 2411 Re: [Joe Cell Free Energy Device] TiO2 Test. --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Moeck <dmoeck@e...> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Now that I have had some time to study your test results ....... Hi Daniel, Nice to hear from you. Regarding your last post: < I do not want to ask you to test it any more because it sounds like < it is hard on your cell and only leads to different results than < you are used to. We are on two different paths to the same destination. It is not so much that the inclusion of extra chemistry "leads to different results", for me the result is negative, i.e. not an improvement to what I am achieving at the moment with no additives. As the water is for human consumption I do not want to 'pollute' the water by adding chemistry or by 'cooking it' with excessive charging and the resultant metal deposition into the water. About 10 or so years ago both Joe and I were pouring every possible chemical into the cell, in an endeveour to improve the cell action. If you look at the Joe videos you will see him emptying his locker and commenting on some of the chemistry. Joe did not add any chemistry to his later cells, and he demonstrated this by starting cells with the water that the visitors brought with them. I have never been as 'advanced', 'blessed', nor as successful as Joe, he is indeed the true master. But as he has not shared even one word with us, he may as well not be there for all the good that it will do to our progress. However, in my own way I did rediscover that electrolyte was required to run the cell on low voltages. As soon as I went to higher voltages I dispensed with the electrolyte and have achieved better results. I have not used any additives in my cells for at least four years. Unless I do tests for others that is. <g> I really cannot take the liberty of modifying my 'pure' water as my cell water is designed for human consumption. < Any of you would probably be horrified at the pitted, corroded, < gunked up condition of my test cell. Not really Daniel, I have uploaded a picture out of my manual to the photo section. It is called cones.gif. In my early attempts in exploring the cell phenomenon, I also tried long periods of high current. I have had up to 50 Amps continuous through a cell and for hours. Apart from cooking the water, pitting the cones and making a truly "gunked up" cell it did not get me anywhere. You are obviously doing something that I did not attempt, I sincerely wish you success. My cell require a dielectric of the highest possible 'K' to maintain the oscillation of the tank circuit, any impurities will increase the conductance and thus reduce the 'Q' of the tuned circuit. You will see on the test that I posted that even with the three very quick charges of the cell the conductivity was starting to creep up. It goes without saying that the 'pitted' cones must have deposited that chemistry into the water. < Firstly: can you share the full analysis of Joe's water with me? < And do you have conductivity and Redox readings on his water? Yes, I can give you the full lab finding. As there are five closely typed pages I will giver you the relevant material only. Sorry no Redox on the test report. pH = 7.16, Conductivity = 371 micro Siemens, Total suspended solids = 0.5 mg/L, I will give you only the significant solid quantity analysis, as it is too tedious for me to go through all the elements. If I have missed out your favorite one, please ask. All values are in mg/Kg. Aluminium =5, Bromine = 5, Iron = 5, Iodine = 5, Phosphorus = >50, Lead = 11.8, Praseodymium = 1.65, Rubidium = 2.85, Scandium = 1.55, Samarium = 1.2, Titanium = 20.5, Vanadium = 17, Chromium Oxide = 12.6, Iron Oxide = 62.8. Nickel Oxide = 4.69, Silica = 2.38. The above is the analysis of 'sludge' taken from the top of Joe's keg. It can be easily seen that this cell was also well 'cooked' by looking at the high Vanadium, Chrome and Iron Oxide levels. Nevertheless this is the water that Joe used to fill his car cell to run his Escort. The high Phosphorus level is due to Joe obtaining his water from the down side of heavily fertilized farming ventures. Maybe the high levels of Phosphorus and Praseodymium's are some sort of clue for your uses, I have no idea. < If I am doing my math right you used a concentration < about 2 1/2 times more than what is in Joe's water naturally. I < wonder if matching his concentration would have killed your cell? Probably, as the cell was breeding quite happily until the addition of the TiO2. Maybe as in homeopathy the exact small quantity may have done something. A few years of testing may find the exact mix. <g> < I suspect it would have. Do you know why? I think it would have < because you didn't ionize it long enough and/or your spring water didn't need < it to begin with. The lengthy ionization period would have destroyed the conductivity of my water and I know from previous testing that this would increase the 'leakage' of my cell. I agree with you on the second point, the spring water is 'just fine thank you very much'. <g> < ..... I believe the "seeding" stage is where the applied current is forming a < specific type of water cluster around specific types of ions. I believe the < "breeding" stage takes over when those clusters, due to their unique geometry, < and probable association with ormus, begin conducting "orgone", or possibly, < "zero-point" energy. Yes, I hear what you are saying Daniel, we just have so much work to do to remove the 'ifs, buts and maybes'. It would be so nice if even one more of the 260 plus lurkers on this site would only help with the quest. I have run out of money and I am not getting any younger, surely there must be somebody that has at least some sort of itch to experiment, learn and so progress? Reward is proportional to effort, not much effort in being spoon fed. < ...put a rodin coil on the output tube of a breeding cell to see if I can < detect an electromagnetic/magnetic spinwave. Been there and done that and even more. The final design has the Rodin coil in the concentric center of two contra-rotating cone single layer coils. Point to point,(a la Walter Russell). I fed the rotating coils with swept sine waves in the audio frequency range. As some specific point of the test, I woke up on the floor, with blood coming out my nose, eyes and ears. To put it mildly I scared the hell out of myself. I still have the device and give it a wary look ever so often. I am not game to fire it up until I learn a bit more about how to control the output. I had a CRO on the Rodin coil output and it was starting to display some patterns, the rest is hazy history. Daniel, it is possible to do some very extensive testing in over 11 years of daily cell research. I have at least 20 cells with some very interesting configurations. I was trying to keep it simple by mentioning only one cell to the group, something simple and easy to build that will give results. Once we learn to crawl, we can walk and then run and then ............<g> < and if it does read on the cell then you would have an effective "orgone < meter" to measure cell performance with. I did mention how to obtain an orgone reading meter in the post where I was stupid enough to make an 'in passing' remark about a certain coil former. It may have been overlooked in the general merriment of the to and fro correspondence. <g> Thank you for sharing with us Daniel, much appreciated. kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2413 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard King" <karismadesigns@x> wrote: > --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, > > Hi Alex. > Could you answer a few questions Please? > Hi Len, Nice to hear from another experimenter, I sincerely wish you every success. Sure, I will do my best to answer your questions. As a result of previous mails I would like to again affirm that my answers are not 'absolute truth', but only my very best and honest attempt to convey what I have discovered form my own research. Congratulations on your recent "reliable surface tension" results. It only goes to show that persistence and tenacity will eventually breed results. Well done Len. < Last 6 months working on car cell with internal flash back/petrol < check valve. I am a little bit curious why you would need a flash-back arrestor with your cell? Even if you are connected directly (without a blind plug) to the induction side of your motor, I would have presumed that your 'Brown gas' production would be too low to cause you problems. In my case when I had a direct cell connection to the motor (before or after the carburetor), infrequently I would hear a muffled 'bang' somewhere in the works, this was with 1 Amp cell current flow. It never caused any problems as the explosion was of a far lower magnitude than the normal petrol one. The 'bang' did not seem to come out of the muffler of the car. It sounded more like it was in the inlet manifold or even the crankcase area. Joe made internal flash back arrestors for cells that were used to generated gas to weld with. You can see the result of not using an arrestor on the Joe videos. He shows the effect that this had on his blue fire extinguisher welding cell. Relevant to this topic is a very interesting story that was floating around based on this internal arrestor cell. I will repeat it as it was relayed to me, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the story. Apparently Joe discovered that the internal arrester was producing some white powder out of the exit tube. He gathered this white powder and placed it in a container. This was installed on the dragster that did the legendary times at the drag meeting. So as the story goes the dragster actually never had a Joe cell, as we are familiar with the term . < Questions: 1, Blind plug-does this work as a flash back/petrol check < valve? If you mean the completely blank (without any hole) blind pug, the answer is yes, as the 'Brown gas' does not get into the motor at all.<g> When the cell develops an excess of internal pressure the loose fit on the rubber coupling on the transfer pipe will release the excess pressure into the atmosphere. If you mean the blind plug with the tiny hole in it, the answer is no, as the tinniest of holes will still allow the occasional back flash into the cell. If the cell has a lot of free space in the dome area, the cell can explode or implode, all depends on the precise timing and mix at the time of the event. If you must use a flash back arrestor, the safest one is one designed on the two-tubes-in-liquid principle (like the one that you describe). I have used the commercial ones that you put in series with your oxy- acetylene hoses, and apart from the price (around $90 AU) they tend to fill up with water and become useless. < 2,Have you built a cell with internal flash back like you see on < joe's video 2 with the vacuum under the surface tenion water level. Like the one described on Geoff Edgel's site? Yes, and when I did not get any 'miraculous' powder or any benefits, I went back to my normal basic cell. Len, there are some disadvantages to the 'flash back cell' design. The dome area must be airtight and able to handle moderate pressure. The transfer tube cannot come out of the top of the dome and thus makes for a messy and inefficient installation. The central one inch tube is now enclosed and I think this tends to 'unbalance' the cell. To the best of my knowledge, Joe never ran a car on a cell that had the internal flash back fitting. I may be very wrong of course, but I personally cannot see any need or use for that type of cell for car use. Do you have any input on this topic? < 3,Can you confirm water level in cell above plates, as some people are < still confused about that in your book/manual. Okay, and I also understand where the confusion arises from. <g> Firstly, let us talk about a test cell sitting on a table. The cylinders form concentric 'tuned cavities' with the water acting as a dielectric and also as a 'lens'. The most important activity occurs at the top of the cylinders, and this is why it is so important to have these ends precisely machined and aligned. The 'electric field' does protrude slightly above the level of the top cylinder edges, just like on the edges on the plates of a conventional air capacitor. IF there is a high level of electrolyte in the water (thus high conductance), meniscus height will be the 'right' height as the conductivity of the water will tend to 'short circuit' the top of the cell pack. By meniscus height, I mean the very slightest of depression of water in between the cylinders. This level also acts as a very good gage for judging surface tension. If the electrolyte level is low (thus low conductance), then we can use a higher water level as the water will not tend to conduct as much. Thus slightly less than a quarter of an inch will do nicely. This was the level used for the TiO2 Daniel tests as posted. If you put too much water in over the top of the cylinder pack, you run into the danger of the cell forming a false water 'top' (layer) that it deems to be 'right'. This layer is below the true level of the water in the cell. This false top will tend to block the cell generating action and will prevent the correct transfer of 'things' up (or down) the transfer tube. The other problem is that the water level will also act as the floor of the resonant cavity formed by the dome. The water level does act as a form of tuning for the cell cavity. With the absence of a central quartz crystal in the dome, this effect is slight, but important enough for people that have problems in getting a cell to breed. That is why it is easier to 'charge' the water in a keg. As the keg has no top so to speak, it does not have this additional tuning problem. We then pour the charged water into our car cell. It requires a fair bit of work to design a cell that can 'charge' as well as run a car. From many dozens of communications with individuals with failed cells, one thing is blatantly obvious. On the cell construction side, ALL of them could immediately 'see' how they could 'improve' the basic cell design as published and have NEVER build a Joe cell as described. The results were as to be expected. I must have said it a hundred times if I have said it once; get the basic cell to work and then start fiddling around. Unless we know exactly what we are making, how in the hell can we modify it to make it 'better'? For people having problems I would suggest charging in a keg and then filling the car cell with this charged water. Regarding water level in a car cell. As the car is an unstable platform, you want a water level about quarter to half an inch above the cylinder pack to keep the cell happy. Len, I hope that the above answers your questions. If not, let me know. Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2416 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard King" <karismadesigns@x> wrote: > > > Hi Alex. > > > > Thankyou Alex for answering my questions > Hi Len, Hoping that you are keeping well. Regarding your post 2414: When the cell is connected atmospherically to the induction side of the motor, the complications escalate considerably. As the inlet manifold depression can range from 0 to -25 or so inches of mercury, the poor cell will try to follow this variation. Additionally, if the cell is powered i.e. power connected to it, the problem is even worse as the cell will now go above atmospheric pressure, with further complication to the transfer out of the cell. Depending on the minimum size of the transfer tube and plughole, you will set up an oscillating 'air' flow to and from the cell. This we do not want. It will definitely cause your petrol smell as well as slowly 'killing' the cell. If the engine uses any form of exhaust gas re-circulation (EGR) and similar techniques, this will also interfere with the cell action. As you are probably aware it is vital to make sure that the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system is modified to be a closed system, see the Joe video for more on this. Even the type of power brake booster and distributor vacuum advance/retard (if fitted) is critical. It was a small miracle that the Rover has most of the 'right' attribute to enhance the Joe cell operation. The S.U. carburetor is one of the main ones. In actuality the original rotary Wankel motor was the most suitable for hydrogen or cell work. Must have the chrome chambers, carbon seals and twin distributors. > We then made a glass external standed flash back using water and > observed that just after deacceleration there was a back flow from > engine to cell. Yes, to be expected for the above reasons. > The flashback in our latest cell we are building is to stop the > petrol fumes getting to the surface tension. Please be aware that passing the 'output' of a Joe cell via a water flashback fitting will change the characteristics of the cell. Joe demonstrates this when he shows his blue fire extinguisher cell output going via the water trap in his video. I could never manage to run a car on a cell with any sort of 'trap' in the transfer tube connection, nor have I seen or hard of a car that could. That is not to say that Joe or you cannot do this, I will be pleasantly surprised. I am sure that the group would be very interested in your future research results, if you would care to share them. That is why using a blanking plug eliminates all the above problems. I would suggest to you that if you insist on going the direct connection method, to at least try a blanking plug that has the smallest possible drill hole in it. The printed circuit board (PCB) drills that you can buy at Jaycars and similar electronic shops are about the right size. > when viewing the first video,Joe talks about giving someone a > working cell and that person added lots of electralite and has a > explosion then he says that his cell had a flashback. Yes it sure will, if a person decides to use a lot of electrolyte the cell can easily pull 25 amps or more. That will create large quantities of hydrogen and an explosion is guaranteed. As Joe said many times, "that is not how I do it", and it was not how I did it either. In actuality he should have never demonstrated the huge liberation of bubbles and gas on the videos, as it was very misleading to the new players. Impressive yes, but not the way to go. It is very hard to discourage people from using 'more' and 'longer' when something does not work. As you know, we are not interested in hydrogen production as such, and the 'normal' minimal electrolysis in a 'standard' cell will cause no problems, except for the occasional 'bang' that is virtually harmless. Joe has stated on several occasions that you may as well "connect the cell to the car door handle" for all the difference that it makes. Now I would suggest that that means that there is no direct connection to the car intake system. <g> I would like to remind the readers that there are four basic methods in the way a cell can 'run' a car. 1. The cell is only a non-working prop. A hidden fuel line supplies the engine as per normal. A lot of hand waving and mumbo jumbo is spoken to confuse the gullible innocents. Sadly this method has been used a few times by people that should know better. The clues are the usual petrol smell, engine noise and the efforts by the cell 'expert' to keep the onlookers confused, as well as a refusal to answer questions that may give the game away. 2. The cell is used to supplement a car that is running on petrol. This usually involves the blocking off or at least greatly reducing the fuel flow in the main jet/s of the carburetor. The car uses the standard idle system and the cell 'runs' the car at higher load/throttle requirements. This is one reason that the Weber carburetor is a very good choice. The jets are easily accessed with minimal effort. Joe used this method on the Escort. This 'shandy' system is the most popular and was frequently used by Joe and many others. I would suggest this method as the best staring point for novice cell operators. 3. The car runs on its normal fuel system. For a lack of more suitable words, the cell acts as a modifier of the localized 'gravity' field. In the broadest of terms, the mass of the reciprocating parts is reduced with an enhancement in maximum and minimum R.P.M., as well as engine efficiency. I use the term 'mass' and 'gravity' very loosely. With this method the cell has no direct connection to the atmospheric parts of the motor. Many people get to this stage, but are unaware of the real reason for the saving in fuel, unless the truck levitates that is. <g>. This method is very temperamental and many very small variables make it a hit and miss system. Not as 'magical' as method four, as the true concepts of 'gravity' are finally within the grasp of mainstream science. 4. The fuel is completely removed, the air supply is limited and the fuel lines must be blocked. The cell 'runs' the car in total. This is the most 'magic' and least understood mode of cell operation. It is the hardest to achieve and the hardest to maintain in reliable operation. I would be surprised if there were more than a handful of cars on this planet that are running in this mode, and no, they are not all conversions by Joe. Len, thank you for explaining what you are up to, good luck with your new experiments. Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2420 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, noblesilkfairy <no_reply@y...> wrote: < I was excited to read this: <snip> Hi Justin, > Does this mean the Mazda 12a or 13b engines may be good candidates > for cell conversion? I am a fan of the rotary engine and this would > be great. I have an old Rx 7 that I would like to eventually > convert but I'm not sure if a conversion would be possible given the > different engine. The original rotary motor was before the Mazda rotary era. As a motor for car and petrol use, the first (German) motor was not a stunning design. It had a low compression ratio and so low efficiency. This low efficiency was reflected in the very high fuel consumption of around 14 mpg, and even more when heavily pushed. This is more like the fuel consumption for a big 6 or V8. It had very low torque and the good BHP figure was achieved by high rpm. At high rpm the apex seal life was greatly reduced so a rev limiter was fitted. Coupled with the fact that the engine requires lubricating oil (like a two stoke) you will start to realize that there is something very unusual that justified the release of this motor for mass production. Mazda did their best to optimize it to it to run on petrol, the rest is history. 1. You should use a motor that has the early carbon apex seals and not the upgrade to ceramics. Carbon is the least 'intrusive' element to the life force/Orgone. 2. You should use a motor that has individual leading and trailing distributors. When you run the motor on a combined mix of petrol/'Orgone' each distributor is optimized for the relevant 'fuel'. If you cannot obtain an early 10a motor and if you are rich, the latest Mazda rotary motor designed to run on hydrogen is the best out of a poor choice. This motor is already fitted with the hydrogen entry tube and you would connect the cell to this point. The design of the motor prevents any backfire from the hydrogen or the Joe cell. Even if you fail to run it on a Joe cell, you will be ready to run it on hydrogen. <g> If you have read my manual and posts you would be familiar with the fact that Orgone obeys optical laws of reflection, refraction, etc. Thus the chrome bore is about as good as you can get for cell work. Before you ask, no, I have not personally converted a rotary motor, Joe may have. You may want to ask Joe, as your RX7 and the existing motor may be a very easy conversion. My information comes from very reliable 'secret' German research and not from hands-on experience. As it is not my own verified data, the above is about all that I can share with you without just repeating more hearsay. Regards, Alex.
Post #: 2423 Hi guys, Recently Justin asked a question regarding the conversion of a rotary motor to run on a cell. I am glad to report that a good 'cell' friend took the trouble to ask Joe if he ever did a conversion. The answer is verbatim: " With regards to the rotary motor I asked Joe if he had ever tried a cell on one and he said he had and it went like nothing on earth." Alex.
Post #: 2426 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, "natloz_1" <joecell4@h...> wrote: > I was wondering if Alex could give a more precise location of his > water supply as well as Joes location. <snip> Hi Walt, Great to be able to share information with another experimenter, thank you for your input. My water comes from a spring at the very beginning of the Acheron River out of Warburton. If you use the WGS84 datum, the location is Lat. 37 degrees, 39.631 minutes South and Long. 145 degrees, 45.467 minutes East. Joe obtained some of his water from a nearby stream in his location. He lives at Lismore Heights, postcode 2480. In case you missed it, I uploaded the analysis of his water on a recent post to Daniel. Good luck with your experiments, success is 99% failure. <g> Regards, Alex.
Post #: 2429 --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, aljhoa <no_reply@y...> wrote: > > Can incoming air/water-vapor be charged by the air-capacitor < snip > Hi, Regarding the Joe condenser 'ioniser' device. It is well known that when a sample of gas-water vapor is cooled that there is a temperature at which water will begin to condense. By definition this temperature is knows as the "Dew point". If the gas-water vapor is cooled sufficiently, the relative humidity will reach 100%, i.e. the sample will be saturated. Any further cooling will result in the precipitation of water and may even reach what you call the "ice" stage (water crystals). Normally the cooling effect is obtained by rapidly exhausting a pressurized container to the atmosphere. The resultant expansion of the gas-water vapor charge is the reason that we have a cooling effect. If the cooling is sufficient to reduce the temperature of the gas to, or below the dew point, water vapor will condense out in the form of a fine mist or fog. More cooling will result in the formation of ice crystals. The formation of the 'fog' at the dew point depends on the presence of 'dust' to act as nuclei around which droplets can form. This 'dust' is normally present in the intake charge gas-water vapor mix. Methods of enhancing the formation of the above vapor droplets can include any mean that ionizes the charge. A radioactive substance similar to Radium is used in commercial applications. I would suggest that the Joe 'ioniser' would serve a similar function. In a car motor, there is relatively sudden opening of the inlet valve, and a depression resulting from the descending piston. If this generated sufficient cooling is beyond my personal field of expertise. As mentioned the Joe ioniser was relayed to me verbally and I have never made any attempts to duplicate the device. It is a relatively cheap and easy conversion, maybe you may care to try it? Regards, Alex.
Post #: 2449 > --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, "Cosku" > <coskuarsiray@y...> wrote: Hi Cosku, Regarding your question and "play with my thoughts". > ...., and cylinders will operate > as a result of suction. And inlet walves will be exhaust and > exhaust valves will be inlet valves. And it will suck air from > exhaust and air will be transfered to air inlet.(reverse operation > regardless of ignition). .... All new to me, I have no idea where you got the above ideas/information from. In my conversions there was definitely no suction (intake) at the exhaust pipe and there was no exhaust coming out the top of the carburetor If you have more information on your version of events I would love to chase it up. > if i again assume that i am able to run it on orgone, how can we > adjust the speed of engine?( by thinking about the reverse > operation, there will be no throttle valve to control air - as you > know air determines the fuel flow on conventional engines > (atmospheric ones)while it is running,it tends to create a vacuum > to suck air) As mentioned above, to the best of my knowledge there is no reversal of external gas flows as compared to the conventional four stroke cycle. Related web material has mentioned that a car running on the Joe cell does not require any air input. I disagree. In my car conversions the car definitely required air (or whatever was contained in it). The car would not run with the air intake blocked off. That is not to say that somebody else cannot run the motor under water. Again, I would love to see some actual experimental results. > ....if we use orgone why we need ignition timing( i think this is > only related to hydrogen usage). Again, I can only report on my results, namely that the voltage discharge is vital, and so is the correct timing of same. In actuality (as Tesla and many others have reported), the humble spark holds many 'secrets'. > I am stuck on this issues on my mind. Could you help me to deal > with them? With the though play that you created in your mind I would suggest that you will indeed stay "stuck". <g> Air is definitely required. The throttle position governs the precise mixing of 'air' with the contribution from (or to) the cell. The high voltage discharge (spark) at the exact right time will cause a resultant. It would be more correct to call the throttle a combined air and mixture control. It has been known for the car to speed up as the throttle is shut, as opposed to the normal slowing down. Needles to say this has caused the drivers some severe panic attacks. <g> Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2460 Hi Dan, You wrote: > RE the mention of the voltage discharge (spark), how does this sit > with reports of converted motors not requiring spark plug leads? > next > DAN If possible could you expand on the above? I would be very interested to read more about the above "reports". To the best of my knowledge, there is only one person that ever claimed that he could run an engine without spark plug leads, and that was dear old Joe. I have enclosed the relevant section in which Joe makes the claim. This particular event has nothing to do with a car running on the cell, Joe was merely demonstrating his very unique abilities. There are many stories of Joe's legendary abilities to light household lights, neutralize voltage and current, holding 240 volt mains leads without getting a shock, etc. The following is the relevant part of a lengthy transcript of Joe clearing his throat. <g> ".....Now, if you've ever played with something called a LEMI unit. There's a fella that's brought out a gas unit, it's called a LEMI, L - E - M - I, I think it is. It's all tested overseas in the Volvos, trucks and cars, and everything else..... Heaps more economy, Heaps more power and everything else. And the guy over here who released all that stuff, just close to me here. Um, I took Professor Ron Davis down to his place, because Professor Ron Davis wanted to look at this stuff, see it running..... The boy had the HT. Said his flaming thing, jerks and farts and coughs and plays up merry hell. If he takes the LEMI unit off, it runs smooth. Puts the LEMI unit on -runs like a mongrel dog!.... It was like it was running on about one cylinder. The spark was getting into the cylinders, the spark plugs were okay, the distributors were okay, the points were okay, the carburettor was okay. Everything was okay. I pulled off, in front of Ron Davis and all the rest of the people there, I pulled off every one of the spark plug leads to the spark plugs. And I put it in me hand and I held it in the centre of the motor about a sixteenth of an inch away, in a bunch, and the motor run like as smooth as smooth.... with leads just held not onto the spark plugs, just into the middle of the block. All of them just crunched up into the distributor and aimed into the centre of the block,... 186 Holden, smooth, six cylinder, smooth as glass it run. You put all the leads back on again, it run like a mongrel dog again.... I don't know why. That's what happened in that. But with the 186 on the HO I could not take the leads off and stick them in the centre of the motor and make it run, but on the HQ I could ,... " Kind regards, Alex.
Post #: 2461 Hi Cosku, You wrote: > ... I tried to figure how an IC engine works. And I thought > that if orgone implodes, operation would be reverse. If I am wrong > correct me please. Far be it for me to tell anybody that they are "wrong". I am not a God, and as such I can only express my opinion, which may be equally "wrong". <g> I disagree with your conclusions, and I have explained my reasoning many times, some are in the 13 updates that are on this site and in the file section. In brief, imploding a gas, and thus using the atmospheric pressure drop to 'suck- up' the piston would not produce the same power that a detonated expanding fuel charge does. A car 'running' on the cell displays the same or greater engine performance as compared to the same motor using conventional fuel, thus I disagree with your conclusion. Additionally if we did use implosion in the combustion chamber, that does not imply a reversal of the standard four stroke cycle. > 1-By the way, as Dan pointed out, if we use an engine without spark > plugs.(As Mitsubishi-Volvo GDI or an ordinary Diesel) what would > happen? I have never seen, or even heard about a total Joe cell conversion on a standard diesel motor, maybe Dan has more information? I have heard of conversions to a diesel that was modified to run with spark plugs and a Joe cell. That conversion was done to a truck motor in South Australia and apparently it worked extremely well. You can use a Joe cell on a conventional diesel vehicle to obtain a 20% increase (approximately) in performance and thus fuel saving. However this comes from the alteration to the 'mass' of the engine and/or vehicle and has nothing to do with 'running' the motor on a Joe cell. Kind regards, Alex.
Post #:2467 Hi Cosku, You wrote: < By the way if implosion take place, would there be only 2 < strokes? By this way don't we need to redesign the 4 stroke engine? Friend, as I said in the last mail, I disagree with the implosion theory, at least in the way that you have proposed it. Please read my updates if you are interested in my opinion on the implosion theory. Yes, the 'normal' four-stroke motor is far from ideal as a device that is worthy of a Joe cell, or anything else. At around 23% efficiency, it is a design well past it 'use by date'. If it were not for the fortunes being made from the associated industries, we would have converted to more friendly energies a very long time ago. From the poor choice of motors in the real world, the rotary type motor (as used by Mazda) is the 'best', and even this motor requires a few conversions. In a conventional motor (running on the Joe cell), we still require an induction (down stroke), compression (up stroke), combustion or equivalent (down stroke) and exhaust (up stroke). The conventional four-cycle motors are more suitable for Joe cell work as compared to a two-stroke motor with two cycles. The down side of a two-stroke motor (for 'easy' Joe cell conversion), is the use of both sides of the piston, oil injection (or addition) and a complex exhaust system (which is in actuality a part of the combustion chamber). Yes, you could improve on present design, if you have the time and money, but at the end of the day, what are you trying to do? It requires more than a "redesign", we requires a new viewpoint, a new mindset, a new direction and so a new future. We will not find it in a redesigned lump of metal. If you have to do what you have to do, many four strokes engines are running quite happily on a Joe cell, now that is fact. Cosku, with due respect, why don't you just convert a plain old water- cooled four stroke? After you get one of these going, then by all means "redesign the 4 stroke engine". Always start with a 'known' and only then progress to the 'unknown'. You will learn far more by the 'hands-on' approa |