jonule wrote:Jonule you really don't understand anything:
and here it starts again.
you see nlc you speak to me as you spoke to him: no wonder he left as I said a few days ago above.
Mea culpa, it's true that I got a little carried away
You missed a lot of exchanges during your absence, which were probably deleted elsewhere. Gaudet started to completely derail just when I told him that I was stopping arguing and wasting my time, because he did not even read the explanations given to him and only offered insults as arguments.
jonule wrote:you only repeat the faraday limit, by measuring flow. we get to know you by heart. and by this, you block any initiative.
but who set these limits? you ... based on what? a book that dates ... when?
I am not blocking any initiative. If I myself had more time I would very much like to continue research to try to twist the neck to this limit of 2.4Wh per liter of gas. I'm not as stubborn as you might think or else I wouldn't have created the subject of improved electrolysis if I was convinced that we couldn't do better than faraday.
I'm just struggling to try and make it clear that blowing 4 bubbles with a PWM assembly isn't automatically a successful Meyer replica.This is why the internet is full of nonsense, rumors, and "lines" that don't work (in the sense that the Meyer process would work).
The proof, I don't know if you followed what we said about JL Naudin. He made a reply, which obviously does not work, it suffices to analyze his findings on his page. But as he did not clearly explain that his replica did not work, other sites relayed the information that JL Naudin had a meyer replica that worked. But this is totally wrong. And our friend Gaudet was (and still is) convinced that Naudin has a meyer replica that works because he read it on a site. You may well explain to him in detail by A + B why the replica does not work, by simply analyzing Naudin's page on his replica in the right direction, he does not believe you because he read on another site someone say that the Naudin replica works.
jonule wrote:assuming to compare sizes that are comparable according to you, cadsur criteria that you have set. For example, you suppose that the gas produced is the same each time, therefore comparable, as well as other confusions: you base yourself on it but it turns out certain rules escaped you, as Gaudet had pointed out, on the grade stainless steel, etc etc
There you are not wrong, nothing contradicts the fact that the real Meyer method could release a different gas. Although I have never seen Meyer talk about this anywhere, and that intuitively, the water molecule being formed of hydrogen and oxygen, I do not see what could come out other than hydrogen. and oxygen.
But: all the replicas that we see do not work according to the Meyer process and the bubbles are caused by the passage of the current. So the gas that comes out cannot be different from a standard electrolysis, since these replicas are only standard electrolyses in the end.
Once again I am not saying that Meyer does not work, I am saying that all the replicas that we see do not highlight the Meyer process. On the other hand, the only things that run everywhere on the net are photos and videos which always show the same thing, show that it works, but never without any concrete measurement (flow, energy measurement of gas, etc. .)
The only attempt at a correctly documented reply in my opinion is that of JL Naudin, but unfortunately it is not functional. I also sent him an email to ask for more details and ask him why he does not explain that his replica does not work. I have not yet had an answer.
After for the stainless steel grades .... he was only repeating what he read on the site of a guy who had read on the site of a guy who had on the site of a guy who had read who had read on a guy's site .....
jonule wrote:I do not question your sincerity in question: but I just say that it is your way of seeing things, and it should not be imposed: many other technologies presented on this site are + or - smokers.
I never said that the pwm of pdf14 would make meyer work, I said that it is one of the keys, yes there are several and gaudet we would have been to cross + 1 which escapes us, but the communication was not there ... on both sides, and I still regret it.
the same communication that you are still showing and for me it's being a little psycho-rigid anyway. I’m not preventing you from saying I’m embarrassing and difficult to move forward and innovate with this mentality, and practical to dictate.
In case you hadn't noticed it, gaudet has no solution, since in the end he never tried anything, and his final goal was in fact to form a group to try a replica ...
So he has no more solution than you or me.
I admit to being stubborn and tenacious, it's true
But once again I don't insist that Meyer doesn't work, I insist on the fact that things have to be done seriously and without haste. And stop concluding that there is a miracle when there are 4 bubbles coming out. If there were really guys who had made a real replica and who were running on water, you can believe me that it would take a different turn than now.
If someone does make a serious attempt at replicating, I'll be happy to participate in the topic to give some ideas for what to do to verify that the Meyer process works.
Go see on the forum motoraeau, you will see that I participated quite a bit in this direction!
jonule wrote:I also find that you easily caricature people on this site, as if to call them a crook: who was swindled from what?
and even if running in water is a goal, hydrogen assistance like pantone are only doping for the moment, in adaptation to vehicles not intended for, there was no question of validating a process, one as the other, that if it allowed to roll ONLY in water.
It's not a caricature. If a guy comes to explain in a simple way that he has had a Meyer experience, that he thinks he has the solution, that he explains what he did in detail, shows his experiences (and not that of others), no problem !
But if the guy arrives, says that through his house we run in the water, that we produce free energy with a generator looped back on himself, which fully answers the questions we ask him (or carefully avoid), and that finally you realize that he has never tested anything by himself, flood you with videos seen and reviewed, and especially
commercial links, I said yes, he's a crook, and it's not a caricature!
jonule wrote:> To come back to the subject:
Tom, I don't want to alienate people, but not endure the tone of "no it doesn't work, here do not go forbidden artung".
Again, I'm not saying that Meyer doesn't work, I'm just saying that not all current replicas work, or at least the authors don't prove that they are!
But the worst part is that I think a lot of experimenters are in good faith when they think and say that it works! Except that the tests stop at the video of 4 bubbles which go up in a jar, with a beautiful light behind.
jonule wrote:I suggest that you put this famous pdf14 pwm into production, you who have already made it, and nlc for his electronic talents.
it is clear that this interests me, and beyond our debates with nlc, I am sure that it will interest more than one.
This famous electronic assembly is a function generator, neither more nor less. You can do that if you want and plug it into electrodes. You will have gas but which will be caused by the passage of the current. To hope to obtain a functional Meyer replica, it would be necessary to have a perfect isolation of the cells so that "electrolysis" is carried out in voltage and not in current.
Because we must remember the Meyer principle that's it and nothing else: no current flow, and the rupture of the molecule by a strong potential difference on the electrodes. As soon as the current flows and the bubbles are caused by the current, unfortunately it meets the laws of faraday
Super insulation of the electrodes is then imperative, and the famous VIC is inserted between the assembly of the pdf14 and the electrodes, which allows by resonance and charge pump to increase the voltage at the terminals of the cells. It is very difficult to focus without at least one digital oscilloscope to clearly visualize everything that is happening exactly in order to focus.
)
)