Electrolysis (better method) Hydrogen and ?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by kwhilborn, May 13, 2007.

  1. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Any wannabe inventors out there?

    "Magnetic current" is now being used to produce Hydrogen from water at 1700% more efficiency than "electrical current". It also produces a oxygen byproduct as well, separating it from conventional electrolysis

    It should be called "Magnetrolysis" and I think I just coined the term today.

    So if "Magnetic current" is better at separating Hydrogen from water, then what other methods of "Electrolysis" could be replaced and/or improved upon with the same technique?

    Go ahead invent something using "Magnetrolysis". I'll wait.


    The above link is serious, below is the demonstartions
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-813727532577660991&q=stan meyers&hl=en
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3953634519146582505&q=hydrogen free energy&hl=en

    "Magnetic Current" also is a new concept, and "Magnetrolysis" will require a new set of "laws". So we can call them "Hilborns laws of Magnetrolysis".(nice ring to it)
    I will copy Fardays laws of electrolysis, however I will substitute the word electrical with magnetic, and replace the term ions with magnetic Ions, Faraday with Hilborn, F with H, etc.

    If these websites are true, then it would open an entirely new area of science, and would indicate electricity as electrically charged particles Ñ ordinary ions Ñ rotating about a magnetic current. This would be an exact counterpart of the classical conception that magnetism rotates about a current-carrying electric conductor.

    Now the staggering implications of Dr. Ehrenhaft's observations begin to unfold. Existence of such a thing as magnetic current, once established, would pave the way for industries as gigantic as those that the discovery of electricity led to in its time. A "gold rush" for practical applications might be expected. Patents for them would command fabulous sums, since inventions employing magnetic current would be basic.

    One area would be the ability to possibly tap into and amplify the magnetic field of the earth to power cars, homes. That part of the theory is in the physics forum under "free Energy", and is explained there in some detail, unless it has been bumped to here.
  2. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Wiki on Ehrenhaft. And he was one letter out on Magnetrolysis!

    From http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=151774
    Thread on Ehrenhaft.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    I hate to have to burst a bubble here, but there are several problems with all this. Rather than going into a long drawn-out explaination, I'll simply point out one thing. Did you notice that the article from Popular Science in your first link was published in 1944? One would have to assume that after more than 60 years, the original discoverer - Prof. Felix Ehrenhaft - would have made millions from it. Or someone else would have. What happened? Evidently, it turned out not to work. (Nor could it be expected to.)
  4. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    So all the hydrogen videos on utube currently are bogus?

    It would make sense to fake free energy. Might get a nice bonus from the oil company to forget about your work and move to Hawaii.

    Thanks for the Find Oli, "Magnetolysis". Oh well, thought I was on to a new catch phrase there.

    So. Because someone did not make millions off of it? I am unsure what to think here. I have conducted no experiments and I know you to have more knowledge than me Read-Only. I am again trying to make sense of some things I have pieced together.

    Those videos are awfully convincing, are you sure they are fake? Why should they not expect it to work? Maybe prof. Ehrenhaft had an "accident", the same kind of accident that happenned to the dune buggy guy "Sam Meyers". It should be agreed that this type of fuel would be worth supressing to some industries.

    The experiments seem simple enough, the one post with the battery charger seemed quite real. There are many videos from different people claiming the same thing, that is mostly what I have a problem with.

    Just searched the newer term Magnetolysis, and found 893 website references as well. It seem to be something worth considering.

    Read-only: if you assure me this is nonsense I will apologize and drop it right here, but I am unsure based upon what I am looking at.

    I am looking at a list of patents.
    Last edited: May 13, 2007
  5. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    the real issue here.... is how to seperate these poles.

    since... for this technology, if true, to be of any value, then it must lead to some form of practical something....

    therefore the first thing needed to do, is find a means of practically seperating these supposive n / s magnetic poles.

    obviously... the only thing to do, is reapeat the experiments, but add to them, a goal, of seperating the dust and smoke particles, and other ions in solution and seperate them... and isolate them.

    allowing for the study a given collection of each... which will fail.

    magnetic fields are dynamic, and ever convertable threw the electrons of any given body... and so... disapear.

    the electrons are the key... and it is their behavior we must master...
    that is the frustrating thing anyone will and has probubly learned from this form of research.


    i would recommend alternate studies, around the idea, of direct conversion of magnetic fields, into other forms... for this transformation process and action / reaction patterns are key..

    for example.. supposively,, when magnetic field... are twisted and warped to the point of breaking... literally.. that break point releases the energy of the magnetic field as various EM radiation in the break zone, which can form colorful effects and shit.

    to me... that spells advanced super weapon.

  6. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    therefore the first thing needed to do, is find a means of practically seperating these supposive n / s magnetic poles.
    Try Googling for "monopole". Plus "research" "discovery" etc.
    So why do magnets not rapidly stop being magnetic?
    Like a dynamo you mean?
    How does a magnetic field "break"?
    And with over 30 years of experience in the weapons field I can say that it doesn't.
  7. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    IT FUNNY... you make arguemments.... BUT SAY NOTHING.

    thanks for the deep insightful input.

    I WOULD USE AN INSULT RIGHT NOW... but youll go crying to some moderator.... so sad.

  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Except for pointing out your errors, of course. And asking you to clarify your points...
    Please do, insults from woowoos are fun. And as for "crying to moderators" - bollocks. Skinwalker deleted those posts, I presume, on his own cognition. Why would I bother reporting it?
  9. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    OILY GUY...


    So far no one has proved whether magnetic monopoles exist or not. Some scientists are looking to the sky to see if they'll come from space, some look at volcanic rock to see if they're in the earth, but Dave has an novel approach - he wants to try looking in a pipe. Dave thinks that these particles might be embedded in the pipe of the Hamburg particle detector, a by-product from years of high energy physics experiments. In fact, he's been waiting for ten years for the pipe to be replaced so he can begin his quest for the magnetic monopole.


    big research going on here.... but hey, who knows, right.

  10. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Try reading the entire post idiot. I suggested you google for monopole & research,. The link I gave was purely for the one quote, that applies to one guy.
    Try typing and reading, you could possibly learn something.
  11. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    LOOK.... oily guy...

    if you got something to share then do it...

    you... just saying... "hey.. go read this stuff and learn..."

    doesnt make you a brilliant debator or justify your arguements.

  12. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Aaah, the ever-present cry of the woowoo.
    I am not even trying to debate with you. I am pointing out that you are incorrect on some of your "statements", and I am also not trying justify my arguments - I am providing links to stuff you should know if you're going talk about this subject.
    Assertions like:
    besides having no basis in fact are also given no background by you as to why you would think that way.
    And you accuse me of "not sharing"? Get real.
  13. Werty Registered Member


    Hey guys interesting discussion. I think many of you are too harsh with the analysis of the prof. Ehrenhaft experimentation. Has anyone heard of the Joe Flynn Parallel Path technology. look it up at peswiki.com

    You can verify the the use of magnets to direct magnetic flux to certain portions of this machine I did this myself using a programm called femm.
    look it up at freebyte.com/cad/fea.htm

    This technology is modeled with the same mathematics that we use today. Anyway Flynn now works for the department of defence and that is why we don't see much of this technology.

    The reason why this is so important is that it can direct and lot of flux toward whatever you want like an electrolysis chamber because the flux indicates the path of the current and if you have a lot of current Faradays electrolysis law says you'll have more gas production. If anyone is intersted in seeing some giffs that I cant fit on this forum email me at wertybro@hotmail.com
  14. spidergoat alien lie form Valued Senior Member

    The energy it takes to free hydrogen from it's chemical bonds (with Oxygen in water) is the same no matter what source you use.
  15. Werty Registered Member

    Exactly. I wonder if the parrallel path technology is already being used for electrolysis?

Share This Page