Water as fuel?

[BoyntonStu]

Mike,
Overunity is simply getting more energy out of something than you put into it to create said energy.

OU is by definition; perpetual motion.

In fact, you might say that OU is better than perpetual motion.

A wheel that never stops turning is an example of perpetual motion.

OU means that you can perpetually power more wheels from an OU wheel.

Is encouraging perpetual motion experiments useful or is it wasteful?

BoyntonStu

[coffeeachiever]

OU is by definition; perpetual motion.

In fact, you might say that OU is better than perpetual motion.

A wheel that never stops turning is an example of perpetual motion.

OU means that you can perpetually power more wheels from an OU wheel.

Is encouraging perpetual motion experiments useful or is it wasteful?

BoyntonStu

Encouraging OU is useful. I don't believe we'll find it powering HHO generators with our car batteries like we've been doing. All we'll do with this is save gas, clean our motors and help the planet. All worth pursuing.

If you want to get into OU, it will take a combination of technologies as most things these days do. The earth itself has magnetism that can be tapped. That is energy. Should we not explore that Stu?

Did you read the thread on magnetic resonance? You can find a link to it on H2OPWR's thread on zero current leakage. It's a great read. There's your OU. Disprove it before you poo poo on it.

If we listen to you these days we would be too discouraged to make the discoveries that will advance civilization. Do you not realize that's what we're doing here? We are advancing technology. Even if we don't discover what we're looking for, God only knows what we can discover with the effort.

I will ask you to once again encourage people to take those steps. Help them with what is important and quit getting hung up on the semantics. You are capable of bridging gaps in knowledge for people so that they may make the discoveries that we so desperately need. Instead you are choosing to be critical and distracting.

Once again I will bow out of one of your threads. I hope the next conversation we have is more productive.

[jriggs_18]

What evidence do you have that you can get more energy out of anything than you put into it?

OU and perpetual motion are just a jumble of letters made into words without meaning.


Here's a question based on a scientific definition:

"When you place a can of beer on a block of ice, does the ice cool the beer?"


BoyntonStu

No the heat in the beer is absorbed from the beer to the ice, resulting in a lack of heat in the beer and ready for consumption

Once the beer has been chilled is it still beer? or is it just an empty can? Answer that one Stu

[daddymikey1975]

No the heat in the beer is absorbed from the beer to the ice, resulting in a lack of heat in the beer and ready for consumption

or in layperson's terms, the beer warms the ice.

that's how an air conditioner works. by moving heat from the 'desired cool area' to an area that we don't care about warming.... nothing makes anything cold.. cold is not transferred, rather heat is transferred to something with less heat (commonly referred to as 'cold')

mike

[BoyntonStu]

or in layperson's terms, the beer warms the ice.

that's how an air conditioner works. by moving heat from the 'desired cool area' to an area that we don't care about warming.... nothing makes anything cold.. cold is not transferred, rather heat is transferred to something with less heat (commonly referred to as 'cold')

mike

Mike,


" nothing makes anything cold.. cold is not transferred, rather heat is transferred to something with less heat (commonly referred to as 'cold')"

Correct! Why do you have such assurance?

Could it be that the scientists working on thermodynamics for many decades have provided all the proof necessary to state a Law of Physics?

Should we work on experiments on how to transfer cold?

We could call it OC, 'over cold"; as in "move over cold".


I hope that you get my point.

BoyntonStu

[jriggs_18]

'Cold' is the absence of Heat, Air conditioning systems work by absorbing heat and removing the heat

The ice is cold(no heat), the can is warm(heat present), the Ice absorbs heat, leaving you with a beer can with no heat - that means its cold.

Good discussion we got going here....Stu knows how it works, you are obviously a very educated and deep thinker...keep it coming, i enjoy this

[BoyntonStu]

'Cold' is the absence of Heat, Air conditioning systems work by absorbing heat and removing the heat

The ice is cold(no heat), the can is warm(heat present), the Ice absorbs heat, leaving you with a beer can with no heat - that means its cold.

Good discussion we got going here....Stu knows how it works, you are obviously a very educated and deep thinker...keep it coming, i enjoy this

Welcome to this discussion.

Words and the definitions that we accept creates our realities.

Individual words are difficult to define, and the combining of words much, much more difficult.

Resonance has a definition that we can agree on.

"Resonance of water" has no definition for me.

I have no idea what it means.

BoyntonStu

Questions:

What is the plural of "Oxymoron"?

What is the word that means the opposite of "Oxymoron"?

An example of each would be useful.

[Q-Hack!]

Welcome to this discussion.

Words and the definitions that we accept creates our realities.

Individual words are difficult to define, and the combining of words much, much more difficult.

Resonance has a definition that we can agree on.

"Resonance of water" has no definition for me.

I have no idea what it means.

BoyntonStu

Questions:

What is the plural of "Oxymoron"?

What is the word that means the opposite of "Oxymoron"?

An example of each would be useful.

Wiki shows the plural to be "Oxymorons"... not sure how accurate that is.
Considering that the word "Oxymoron" is a contradiction by itself, the word is from Greek; "oxy" meaning sharp and "moros" meaning dull. I would suspect that there isn't an opposite, other than to say "Common Sense", but even that is subjective.

I do know that the one of the first people to write about the resonance of materials was Nikola Tesla. He had this to say:

"Pure resonance effects leading to ever-increasing amplitude are impossible in
Nature due to the imperfect conductivity and imperfect elasticity of the
media or, generally stated, by frictional losses."

[BoyntonStu]

The plural of Oxymoron is Oxymora.

The opposite is Pleonasm.


Examples: Johnny! Climb down from the tree.

and: Johnny! Climb up the tree.

Do you understand which sentence uses a Pleonasm and which one uses an Oxymoron?


BoyntonStu


Put another way, what Tesla said was that Nature puts a damper on resonance.

Why do so many folks in Hydroxy ignore Tesla?

If Tesla was incorrect, you may possibly achieve OU.

Since I follow Tesla and most other proven scientific measurements, I maintain that the pursuit of Resonance of water and/or OU is a waste of time!

[daddymikey1975]

Resonance has a definition that we can agree on.

"Resonance of water" has no definition for me.

I have no idea what it means.

Stu,

Consider if you will the loud stereo systems that occasionally drive around the streets...

As an audio installer (by trade) I know this to be certain. Things resonate. I would also be daring enough to say that all things have a natural tendency to resonate. The frequency with which they resonate (naturally or most efficiently) is different based on the material in question.

A subwoofer's spec sheet will have a line listed as Fs - resonant frequency of the subwoofer (the physical speaker)

This frequency will be the easiest for the speaker to reproduce with all other parameters being equal. This is the frequency at which the speaker is the most efficient. Of course, this frequency is 'created' by the engineers and designers of the speaker, but you get my point.

When we design an enclosure for a particular speaker, we can make the enclosure have it's own 'natural' resonant frequency.. (to be read, we can make that frequency be whatever we want it to be) this is called tuning the enclosure. We do this to achieve a desired effect within the car's cabin. In fact, the cabin of the car has frequencies that it will 'amplify' (or reproduce very well) and other frequencies will be dubdued.. have you seen an equalizer on a stereo? this equalizer is designed to make up for the lack of frequency 'amplitude'... some materials will absorb sound waves others will reflect them... this absorption and reflection is due to the material in question having differing properties when frequencies are 'applied'.

Consider this...when under water, sounds travel much farther than in air.. the water is more conductive to sound waves (as well as sonar, and the like) than air is.

Since we know that sound waves (and other frequencies) pass through water, is it also possible for water to resonate??

if it is possible to resonate water, would it also be possible for water molecules to have a particular frequency that they 'resonate at' much better than other frequencies??

how about the opera singer that can break a wine glass with their voice? could the note that they reproduce be the resonant frequency of the glass??

I think this would be the 'common or acceptable' definition.

(or at least as good as I can describe)

I hope this helps.

mike