Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TeslaTurbine] Re: The Truth About Electrolysis

Expand Messages
  • Mike Robbins
    I did some experiementing with water injection on a several different vehicles back in the late 80 s and early 90 s. I hooked a jug of water up in the engine
    Message 1 of 29 , Mar 23 8:23 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I did some experiementing with water injection on a several different vehicles back in the late '80's and early 90's.  I hooked a jug of water up in the engine compartment and ran a vacuum line into the dash, the line went from the jug of water to the valve on the dash and then into the intake just below the carburator.  You had to have the engine warm and running down the road for the system to work.  At freeway speeds I would open the water valve until the engine began to run rough then I would close the valve just a little until the engine smoothed out.  With one vehicle, a ford pickup I pulled a 30' goose neck trailer with a loaded weight of about 25,000 pounds.  The engine ran very well as well as cool.  When the water in the jug ran out the engine would loose power and I would have to add about as much pedal as I currently had in order to maintain my speed.  With a full load using water and gasoline I would get 9 miles per gallon in the flat country.  With an empty trailer running only on gasoline I got 9 miles per gallon.  If I pulled a loaded trailer with the gasoline only I would get about 5 to 5.5 mpg.  I didn't have the best set up for delivering water.  Since the system relied on vacuum to inject the water it would work fine in the flat country but if you were going up a mountain the water flow stopped then when you went down the mountain the engine would get way too much water and I would have to close the valve to keep the engine running.  I started out to make a separate venturi for the water but I got distracted by other projects and stopped my work with water injection.
      During the process I talked to many knoledgeable people about what was happening to  the water in the combustion chamber.  Most said that the water was simply displacing air which in turn was just increasing the effective compression ratio of the engine.  Others said that the water would turn to ice as soon as it hit the intake and at best it would possibly turn into steam from the combustion and the steam helped to increase the pressure in the cylinder.  There were more theories but they have slipped from my mind with time.  My theory is that  the water would "crack" in the combustion chamber turning into oxygen and hydrogen then it would burn and add to the effort the gasoline was making.
      The military used water injection in their piston aircraft under emergency situations that required full output from the engine.  The engines that the military used would begin to detonate at very high power settings.  The water was used to stop detonation in the cylinder from the cooling and other effects that it would cause.  Different application but it is the reason that I started to inject engines.  When I started I thought that the water created horsepower like nitrous oxide but more studying found the real reason for the water was to cool the intake charge.
      As  a side note, after 25,000 miles I went to change the spark plugs and found them to be in nearly the same condition as when I installed them.  The ford engine was worked very hard and needed plugs every 20-25,000 miles when running on straight gasoline.
       
      This is an annecdotal bit of information but anyone can duplicate my experiments and get the same results.  I did it with a cadillac, a VW bug, a 1990 ford 3/4 ton pickup another cadillac, a dodge van and a motorcycle...it didn't work to well on the bike, it was a 400cc and I had too much trouble driving and getting the right amount of water flow.
       
      Mike Robbins
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:25 AM
      Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: The Truth About Electrolysis


      --All right I have avoided tis subject for a long time but I just
      have to get into it. !!!!
      1 the use of fuel cell technolagy is a scientests pipe dream , it
      will come of age one day but it will be a long time in comeing .
      2. With out exception all the worlds energy revolves around some sort
      of heat procces.
      3. To consume water in a heat procces it is not realy neccesary to
      devide the oxogen from the hydrogen , as a matter affact it is better
      to leave it together , makes a much hotter fire.
      4. Water when subjected to extream heat will decompose to its basic
      componets at about 3,000 F. If you don't believe ask a fireman , they
      reffer to it as a steam explosion , but what is realy happening ,in
      the center of the explosion is a brief but volatile hydogen
      conversion and burn. You can do this on your barbicue grill with a
      spray bottle of water , try it some time , on close observation the
      greese fire that you try to extinguish with briefly flare up .
      5. so if you have a basic open harth fire going on , like a fosil
      fuel steam plant , adding live steam to the fire increases the
      intensaty of the fire and decreases fuel consumpiont and carbon
      output.
      5. the reason the industry dose not use this simple but wonderfull
      idea is beyond me . I suppose the fireman will argue till the cows
      come home that this is a dangerous idea and will cause a "steam"
      explosin" yea it will if you don't watch it .
      All this from the engineering school of KISS , thanks steve


      - In TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <sabredrivr@y...> wrote:


      >
      > but,if you use solar & wind to generate the electricity needed for
      > electrolysis you've spent how much to make hydrogen?
      > only the cost of the above mentioned systems.
      > any type of fuel cell or battery powered transportation will also
      have
      > the added cost of the battery eventually requiring replacement.
      > using hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines is alot
      > cheaper & more reliable.
      > the main reason it is cheaper & more reliable is;
      > the tech already exists.




    • Mike Robbins
      I forgot a detail or two. If you try this mount the tank just a little bit below the intake port that you will use to inject the water. If you mount the tank
      Message 2 of 29 , Mar 23 8:38 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I forgot a detail or two. If you try this mount the tank just a little bit below the intake port that you will use to inject the water.  If you mount the tank above the intake port and forget to turn the water valve off when you park you will have a very hard time restarting your engine when you come back.  If you mount the tank too low you will only get water part of the time since it will take a large amount of vacuum to move the water.  Try to arrange it so that the center of the tank is just a little below the port and it should work fine.  you will find that as you use over half of the water you will need to re-adjust for a higher water flow.
         
        Mike Robbins
         
        Mike Robbins
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 10:23 PM
        Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Re: The Truth About Electrolysis

        I did some experiementing with water injection on a several different vehicles back in the late '80's and early 90's.  I hooked a jug of water up in the engine compartment and ran a vacuum line into the dash, the line went from the jug of water to the valve on the dash and then into the intake just below the carburator.  You had to have the engine warm and running down the road for the system to work.  At freeway speeds I would open the water valve until the engine began to run rough then I would close the valve just a little until the engine smoothed out.  With one vehicle, a ford pickup I pulled a 30' goose neck trailer with a loaded weight of about 25,000 pounds.  The engine ran very well as well as cool.  When the water in the jug ran out the engine would loose power and I would have to add about as much pedal as I currently had in order to maintain my speed.  With a full load using water and gasoline I would get 9 miles per gallon in the flat country.  With an empty trailer running only on gasoline I got 9 miles per gallon.  If I pulled a loaded trailer with the gasoline only I would get about 5 to 5.5 mpg.  I didn't have the best set up for delivering water.  Since the system relied on vacuum to inject the water it would work fine in the flat country but if you were going up a mountain the water flow stopped then when you went down the mountain the engine would get way too much water and I would have to close the valve to keep the engine running.  I started out to make a separate venturi for the water but I got distracted by other projects and stopped my work with water injection.
        During the process I talked to many knoledgeable people about what was happening to  the water in the combustion chamber.  Most said that the water was simply displacing air which in turn was just increasing the effective compression ratio of the engine.  Others said that the water would turn to ice as soon as it hit the intake and at best it would possibly turn into steam from the combustion and the steam helped to increase the pressure in the cylinder.  There were more theories but they have slipped from my mind with time.  My theory is that  the water would "crack" in the combustion chamber turning into oxygen and hydrogen then it would burn and add to the effort the gasoline was making.
        The military used water injection in their piston aircraft under emergency situations that required full output from the engine.  The engines that the military used would begin to detonate at very high power settings.  The water was used to stop detonation in the cylinder from the cooling and other effects that it would cause.  Different application but it is the reason that I started to inject engines.  When I started I thought that the water created horsepower like nitrous oxide but more studying found the real reason for the water was to cool the intake charge.
        As  a side note, after 25,000 miles I went to change the spark plugs and found them to be in nearly the same condition as when I installed them.  The ford engine was worked very hard and needed plugs every 20-25,000 miles when running on straight gasoline.
         
        This is an annecdotal bit of information but anyone can duplicate my experiments and get the same results.  I did it with a cadillac, a VW bug, a 1990 ford 3/4 ton pickup another cadillac, a dodge van and a motorcycle...it didn't work to well on the bike, it was a 400cc and I had too much trouble driving and getting the right amount of water flow.
         
        Mike Robbins
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:25 AM
        Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: The Truth About Electrolysis


        --All right I have avoided tis subject for a long time but I just
        have to get into it. !!!!
        1 the use of fuel cell technolagy is a scientests pipe dream , it
        will come of age one day but it will be a long time in comeing .
        2. With out exception all the worlds energy revolves around some sort
        of heat procces.
        3. To consume water in a heat procces it is not realy neccesary to
        devide the oxogen from the hydrogen , as a matter affact it is better
        to leave it together , makes a much hotter fire.
        4. Water when subjected to extream heat will decompose to its basic
        componets at about 3,000 F. If you don't believe ask a fireman , they
        reffer to it as a steam explosion , but what is realy happening ,in
        the center of the explosion is a brief but volatile hydogen
        conversion and burn. You can do this on your barbicue grill with a
        spray bottle of water , try it some time , on close observation the
        greese fire that you try to extinguish with briefly flare up .
        5. so if you have a basic open harth fire going on , like a fosil
        fuel steam plant , adding live steam to the fire increases the
        intensaty of the fire and decreases fuel consumpiont and carbon
        output.
        5. the reason the industry dose not use this simple but wonderfull
        idea is beyond me . I suppose the fireman will argue till the cows
        come home that this is a dangerous idea and will cause a "steam"
        explosin" yea it will if you don't watch it .
        All this from the engineering school of KISS , thanks steve


        - In TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <sabredrivr@y...> wrote:


        >
        > but,if you use solar & wind to generate the electricity needed for
        > electrolysis you've spent how much to make hydrogen?
        > only the cost of the above mentioned systems.
        > any type of fuel cell or battery powered transportation will also
        have
        > the added cost of the battery eventually requiring replacement.
        > using hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines is alot
        > cheaper & more reliable.
        > the main reason it is cheaper & more reliable is;
        > the tech already exists.





      • William Carr
        ... Back in Physics class in college, the Prof did some math on how a car engine behaves during a rainstorm. As I recall, he showed that when the air is
        Message 3 of 29 , Mar 24 4:18 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mar 24, 2005, at 2:23 PM, TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com wrote:

          > During the process I talked to many knoledgeable people about what was
          > happening to the water in the combustion chamber. Most said that the
          > water was simply displacing air which in turn was just increasing the
          > effective compression ratio of the engine. Others said that the water
          > would turn to ice as soon as it hit the intake and at best it would
          > possibly turn into steam from the combustion and the steam helped to
          > increase the pressure in the cylinder. There were more theories but
          > they have slipped from my mind with time. My theory is that the
          > water would "crack" in the combustion chamber turning into oxygen and
          > hydrogen then it would burn and add to the effort the gasoline was
          > making.



          Back in Physics class in college, the Prof did some math on how a car
          engine behaves during a rainstorm.

          As I recall, he showed that when the air is saturated with moisture,
          the excess H20 being fed into the engine actually displaces O2 reducing
          the power output, and also sucking up power by absorbing heat from the
          engine.

          Thus the reason that a car's engine settles down and purrs when it's
          foggy out. Less power, less noise.

          Internal combustion Engines are somewhat delicate as we all know. An
          engine operated at altitude needs compressed air to keep working.

          As you mention, injecting H20 vapor into an engine can help it run
          cooler.

          The irony about: "engines that the military used would begin to
          detonate at very high power settings" is that today there's serious
          development going on to harness "Pulse Detonation" as a way of getting
          more power in aviation engines.

          Kind of like riding a bomb. Actually, exactly like riding a bomb.


          As for cracking the water to get H2, recall that you can't get more
          power out than you put in. There's no catalyst that I know of that
          could cheat the cost of cracking water 'in situ'.


          And Internal Combustion Engines don't generally get to 3,000 degrees.
          I did a Google search but couldn't lock down the actual temps that H20
          dis-associates.


          I really like the idea you quote about the water vapor increasing the
          compression in the engine. More compression, running cooler, would
          certainly change the behavior of the engine enough to notice.



          "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary
          act." ~George Orwell
        • Welsh James E Contr 21SOPS/MCOM
          Ummm is it just me, or does anyone see any difficulty in maintaining an affordable environment in which to contain a continuous 3000 degree fire and keep the
          Message 4 of 29 , Mar 24 11:05 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Ummm is it just me, or does anyone see any difficulty in maintaining an
            affordable environment in which to contain a continuous 3000 degree fire
            and keep the whole thing portable? That sounds awfully hot to me... But,
            I'm no mechanical engineer and don't have any degree in thermal
            dynamics.

            -----Original Message-----
            From: stephen the 13th light [mailto:wizardman42@...]
            Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:25 AM
            To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: The Truth About Electrolysis



            --All right I have avoided tis subject for a long time but I just
            have to get into it. !!!!
            1 the use of fuel cell technolagy is a scientests pipe dream , it
            will come of age one day but it will be a long time in comeing .
            2. With out exception all the worlds energy revolves around some sort
            of heat procces.
            3. To consume water in a heat procces it is not realy neccesary to
            devide the oxogen from the hydrogen , as a matter affact it is better
            to leave it together , makes a much hotter fire.
            4. Water when subjected to extream heat will decompose to its basic
            componets at about 3,000 F. If you don't believe ask a fireman , they
            reffer to it as a steam explosion , but what is realy happening ,in
            the center of the explosion is a brief but volatile hydogen
            conversion and burn. You can do this on your barbicue grill with a
            spray bottle of water , try it some time , on close observation the
            greese fire that you try to extinguish with briefly flare up .
            5. so if you have a basic open harth fire going on , like a fosil
            fuel steam plant , adding live steam to the fire increases the
            intensaty of the fire and decreases fuel consumpiont and carbon
            output.
            5. the reason the industry dose not use this simple but wonderfull
            idea is beyond me . I suppose the fireman will argue till the cows
            come home that this is a dangerous idea and will cause a "steam"
            explosin" yea it will if you don't watch it .
            All this from the engineering school of KISS , thanks steve


            - In TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <sabredrivr@y...> wrote:


            >
            > but,if you use solar & wind to generate the electricity needed for
            > electrolysis you've spent how much to make hydrogen?
            > only the cost of the above mentioned systems.
            > any type of fuel cell or battery powered transportation will also
            have
            > the added cost of the battery eventually requiring replacement.
            > using hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines is alot
            > cheaper & more reliable.
            > the main reason it is cheaper & more reliable is;
            > the tech already exists.







            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Welsh James E Contr 21SOPS/MCOM
            Mike, Thanks for sounding out. This gives me confidence. It s nice to see that we can see some kind of results without things having to be too difficult.
            Message 5 of 29 , Mar 24 11:20 PM
            • 0 Attachment

              Mike,

               

              Thanks for sounding out. This gives me confidence. It’s nice to see that we can see some kind of results without things having to be too difficult.

               

              ~Shadow

               


              From: Mike Robbins [mailto:uljunky@...]
              Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 8:23 PM
              To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Re: The Truth About Electrolysis

               

              I did some experiementing with water injection on a several different vehicles back in the late '80's and early 90's.  I hooked a jug of water up in the engine compartment and ran a vacuum line into the dash, the line went from the jug of water to the valve on the dash and then into the intake just below the carburator.  You had to have the engine warm and running down the road for the system to work.  At freeway speeds I would open the water valve until the engine began to run rough then I would close the valve just a little until the engine smoothed out.  With one vehicle, a ford pickup I pulled a 30' goose neck trailer with a loaded weight of about 25,000 pounds.  The engine ran very well as well as cool.  When the water in the jug ran out the engine would loose power and I would have to add about as much pedal as I currently had in order to maintain my speed.  With a full load using water and gasoline I would get 9 miles per gallon in the flat country.  With an empty trailer running only on gasoline I got 9 miles per gallon.  If I pulled a loaded trailer with the gasoline only I would get about 5 to 5.5 mpg.  I didn't have the best set up for delivering water.  Since the system relied on vacuum to inject the water it would work fine in the flat country but if you were going up a mountain the water flow stopped then when you went down the mountain the engine would get way too much water and I would have to close the valve to keep the engine running.  I started out to make a separate venturi for the water but I got distracted by other projects and stopped my work with water injection.

              During the process I talked to many knoledgeable people about what was happening to  the water in the combustion chamber.  Most said that the water was simply displacing air which in turn was just increasing the effective compression ratio of the engine.  Others said that the water would turn to ice as soon as it hit the intake and at best it would possibly turn into steam from the combustion and the steam helped to increase the pressure in the cylinder.  There were more theories but they have slipped from my mind with time.  My theory is that  the water would "crack" in the combustion chamber turning into oxygen and hydrogen then it would burn and add to the effort the gasoline was making.

              The military used water injection in their piston aircraft under emergency situations that required full output from the engine.  The engines that the military used would begin to detonate at very high power settings.  The water was used to stop detonation in the cylinder from the cooling and other effects that it would cause.  Different application but it is the reason that I started to inject engines.  When I started I thought that the water created horsepower like nitrous oxide but more studying found the real reason for the water was to cool the intake charge.

              As  a side note, after 25,000 miles I went to change the spark plugs and found them to be in nearly the same condition as when I installed them.  The ford engine was worked very hard and needed plugs every 20-25,000 miles when running on straight gasoline.

               

              This is an annecdotal bit of information but anyone can duplicate my experiments and get the same results.  I did it with a cadillac, a VW bug, a 1990 ford 3/4 ton pickup another cadillac, a dodge van and a motorcycle...it didn't work to well on the bike, it was a 400cc and I had too much trouble driving and getting the right amount of water flow.

               

              Mike Robbins

              ----- Original Message -----

              Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:25 AM

              Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: The Truth About Electrolysis

               


              --All right I have avoided tis subject for a long time but I just
              have to get into it. !!!!
              1 the use of fuel cell technolagy is a scientests pipe dream , it
              will come of age one day but it will be a long time in comeing .
              2. With out exception all the worlds energy revolves around some sort
              of heat procces.
              3. To consume water in a heat procces it is not realy neccesary to
              devide the oxogen from the hydrogen , as a matter affact it is better
              to leave it together , makes a much hotter fire.
              4. Water when subjected to extream heat will decompose to its basic
              componets at about 3,000 F. If you don't believe ask a fireman , they
              reffer to it as a steam explosion , but what is realy happening ,in
              the center of the explosion is a brief but volatile hydogen
              conversion and burn. You can do this on your barbicue grill with a
              spray bottle of water , try it some time , on close observation the
              greese fire that you try to extinguish with briefly flare up .
              5. so if you have a basic open harth fire going on , like a fosil
              fuel steam plant , adding live steam to the fire increases the
              intensaty of the fire and decreases fuel consumpiont and carbon
              output.
              5. the reason the industry dose not use this simple but wonderfull
              idea is beyond me . I suppose the fireman will argue till the cows
              come home that this is a dangerous idea and will cause a "steam"
              explosin" yea it will if you don't watch it .
              All this from the engineering school of KISS , thanks steve


              - In TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com , "Jim" <sabredrivr@y...> wrote:


              >
              > but,if you use solar & wind to generate the electricity needed for
              > electrolysis you've spent how much to make hydrogen?
              > only the cost of the above mentioned systems.
              > any type of fuel cell or battery powered transportation will also
              have
              > the added cost of the battery eventually requiring replacement.
              > using hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines is alot
              > cheaper & more reliable.
              > the main reason it is cheaper & more reliable is;
              > the tech already exists.






            • Mike Robbins
              You are correct about what happens on a rainy day. The higher the humidity the lower the power output. It doesn t explain the results that I had though. I
              Message 6 of 29 , Mar 25 5:27 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                You are correct about what happens on a rainy day.  The higher the humidity the lower the power output.  It doesn't explain the results that I had though.  I fly ultralights  with two and four stroke engines.  On days when the humidity is over 75% the engine puts out less power and the plane is sluggish to control responses, the air is less dense.
                 
                Mike Robbins
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:18 PM
                Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: Electrolysis


                On Mar 24, 2005, at 2:23 PM, TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                > During the process I talked to many knoledgeable people about what was
                > happening to  the water in the combustion chamber.  Most said that the
                > water was simply displacing air which in turn was just increasing the
                > effective compression ratio of the engine.  Others said that the water
                > would turn to ice as soon as it hit the intake and at best it would
                > possibly turn into steam from the combustion and the steam helped to
                > increase the pressure in the cylinder.  There were more theories but
                > they have slipped from my mind with time.  My theory is that  the
                > water would "crack" in the combustion chamber turning into oxygen and
                > hydrogen then it would burn and add to the effort the gasoline was
                > making.



                Back in Physics class in college, the Prof did some math on how a car
                engine behaves during a rainstorm.

                As I recall, he showed that when the air is saturated with moisture,
                the excess H20 being fed into the engine actually displaces O2 reducing
                the power output, and also sucking up power by absorbing heat from the
                engine.

                Thus the reason that a car's engine settles down and purrs when it's
                foggy out.   Less power, less noise.

                Internal combustion Engines are somewhat delicate as we all know.    An
                engine operated at altitude needs compressed air to keep working.

                As you mention, injecting H20 vapor into an engine can help it run
                cooler.

                The irony about: "engines that the military used would begin to
                detonate at very high power settings"  is that today there's serious
                development going on to harness "Pulse Detonation" as a way of getting
                more power in aviation engines.

                Kind of like riding a bomb.  Actually, exactly like riding a bomb.


                As for cracking the water to get H2, recall that you can't get more
                power out than you put in.   There's no catalyst that I know of that
                could cheat the cost of cracking water 'in situ'.


                And Internal Combustion Engines don't generally get to 3,000 degrees.  
                I did a Google search but couldn't lock down the actual temps that H20
                dis-associates.


                I really like the idea you quote about the water vapor increasing the
                compression in the engine.   More compression, running cooler, would
                certainly change the behavior of the engine enough to notice.



                "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary
                act."  ~George Orwell


              • William Carr
                ... Well, I m not a pilot ! But... is the muggy air actually less dense ? There s less O2 per cubic foot because the water vapor is occupying space and
                Message 7 of 29 , Mar 25 12:00 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mar 25, 2005, at 1:32 PM, TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                  > I fly ultralights with two and four stroke engines. On days when
                  > the humidity is over 75% the engine puts out less power and the plane
                  > is sluggish to control responses, the air is less dense.

                  Well, I'm not a pilot ! But... is the muggy air actually less dense ?
                  There's less O2 per cubic foot because the water vapor is occupying
                  space and therefore displacing Oxygen.

                  Air density does vary with altitude and temperature, of course.

                  As far as interpreting results... well, it's all a matter of
                  interpretation.

                  Tesla was one of the greatest inventors of all time. But he was
                  taught that energy is transfered via 'the ether' and never let that go.

                  Which meant that he could invent a lot of great gadgets; but his
                  ability to understand the processes and predict outcomes was limited.

                  For those who don't recognize this term, in the 19th century the
                  prevailing view of the Universe was that all energy has to be carried
                  by a particle of some kind.

                  Light, for example, would be carried by the 'ether', a field of
                  infinitismal particles that saturate space.

                  Light energy from the Sun bumps into the Etheric Particles in Space,
                  and the light wave is thus a wave travelling through the medium of the
                  Ether. Just as in the ocean, a wave is energy carried through the
                  medium of seawater.

                  There was a test way back when to prove the existence of the Ether.
                  It failed.

                  But it was a well designed test. The theory was that if the Ether
                  permeates space, it must act as a fluid. As the Earth passes through
                  this fluid, it must create a wake.

                  So the experimenters set up a system of light beams rigged to measure
                  this wake. They got nothin'.

                  Because there was no wake to detect.

                  But Tesla, despite his rep for challenging authority, stuck with this
                  idea of the Ether.

                  I often wonder what he might have accomplished if he'd just let that
                  go. And if he'd had a financial manager.








                  "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary
                  act." ~George Orwell
                • Mike Robbins
                  If you have any curiousity about the density of the air at different temps, barometric pressures and humidity levels go to
                  Message 8 of 29 , Mar 27 8:17 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If you have any curiousity about the density of the air at different temps, barometric pressures and humidity levels go to   http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da.htm  You can see the relationships between temp, press. and humidity and the effects that they have on absolute pressure.
                     
                    Mike Robbins
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:00 PM
                    Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Re: Electrolysis


                    On Mar 25, 2005, at 1:32 PM, TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                    >  I fly ultralights  with two and four stroke engines.  On days when
                    > the humidity is over 75% the engine puts out less power and the plane
                    > is sluggish to control responses, the air is less dense.

                    Well, I'm not a pilot !   But... is the muggy air actually less dense ?
                       There's less O2 per cubic foot because the water vapor is occupying
                    space and therefore displacing Oxygen.

                    Air density does vary with altitude and temperature, of course.

                    As far as interpreting results... well, it's all a matter of
                    interpretation.

                    Tesla was one of the greatest inventors of all time.   But he was
                    taught that energy is transfered via 'the ether' and never let that go.

                    Which meant that he could invent a lot of great gadgets;  but his
                    ability to understand the processes and predict outcomes was limited.

                    For those who don't recognize this term, in the 19th century the
                    prevailing view of the Universe was that all energy has to be carried
                    by a particle of some kind.

                    Light, for example, would be carried by the 'ether', a field of
                    infinitismal particles that saturate space.

                    Light energy  from the Sun bumps into the Etheric Particles in Space,
                    and the light wave is thus a wave travelling through the medium of the
                    Ether.    Just as in the ocean, a wave is energy carried through the
                    medium of seawater.

                    There was a test way back when to prove the existence of the Ether.  
                    It failed.

                    But it was a well designed test.   The theory was that if the Ether
                    permeates space, it must act as a fluid.   As the Earth passes through
                    this fluid, it must create a wake.

                    So the experimenters set up a system of light beams rigged to measure
                    this wake.  They got nothin'.

                    Because there was no wake to detect.

                    But Tesla, despite his rep for challenging authority, stuck with this
                    idea of the Ether.

                    I often wonder what he might have accomplished if he'd just let that
                    go.   And if he'd had a financial manager.








                    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary
                    act."  ~George Orwell


                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.