Moshe Daniel
Forum Replies Created
-
Rob Eklund wrote:
quote :This is what I am playing with now, it is that vodka bottle made into a vortexer, that also works as the lid for the dispensing jar.It is still a work in progess, but it does seem to charge the water. With tap water it does start out with a cone underneath, after it runs for a hour or two it becomes a stream.
Here is the picture of Rob\’s new setup
Attachments:
-
Rob Eklund wrote:
quote :Would the size of the tire make a difference, I am using 44\” tires on 16.5\” rims? That is a lot of rubber to go through.On a second line of thought, do you think a ceramic coated spacer between the brakes and the rim, and on the lugnuts might help? ceramic has been used as a high voltage insulater for a long time and it would take the heat from the brakes easily. I know it wouldn\’t totally solve the issue, but it may ease it somewhat.
James Goss has used many material which were surprisingly not good insulators in this business of \”unit charge.\” they would not let any apparent current pass, but there is something else about insulating against unit charge.
my hunch is that your measure of ceramic and thicker rubber on the tires would help, to a certain degree, but probably wouldn\’t eliminate the problem.
-
More from James Goss, in response to my questions:
Hello Moshe,
quote :\” It seems a well operating cell will be able to keep a certain amount of charge on the car, while its charge also continues to trickle out… or is it the discharge is a more fast and complete one rather than a trickle?\”The tires I\’ve tested thus far tends to clear the charge rather fast. Discharge rate does tend to slow after the tires heat up from driving, so out on the road they may allow charge to be retained at certain levels.
quote :\”Is there any sort of tire one could use that would isolate the car from earth ground?\”I\’m trying to locate a source for tires that are not static rated. It\’s the carbon content added to the tires, known as carbon black, that makes them conductive. I don\’t know exactly when tire makers initially introduced carbon to tires, but they have been doing this for quite some time. The added carbon extends the life of a tire, and some brand tires have as much as 30 percent carbon black added. It also makes the tire black in color.
It seems that carbon black gets used up in the process of converting UV rays into heat, which is how they protect the tires. When this takes place a tire turns gray in color. It may be that after the carbon black becomes expended, older tires will have increased insulation value.
I was told that in the last few years tire manufacturers have been developing a low rolling resistance, or rolling friction, tire for improving gas mileage. Adding carbon black increases rolling friction so they are reducing the amount added. Hence newer tires may allow slightly higher voltages to develop on a vehicle chassis.
I recently saw where a vehicle\’s tires were replaced. The owner of the vehicle purchased the tires from a discount tire center that import tires from china. The owner immediately noticed his radio had a great amount of interference. The trouble was traced to the tires. This is the type of tires I\’m looking for.
Thanks,
James -
Rob Eklund wrote:
quote :I have heard that thunderstorms can greatly effect the way a joe cell \”in this case\” works with a vehical. I wonder if that would have something to do with the earth voltages being higher? I have read somewhere that during a thunderstorm the earth can be charged in the area of 2000 volts per square meter.I wonder if that would be high enough to negate the \”bleeding\” voltage to ground long enough for the unit charge to \”settle in\”?
these are great points and questions.
Surely, this must have something to do with cell operation. we have the +vely charged atmosphere / sky, and the negatively charged earth… and then we have the unit charge of the vehicle, which is +ve in reference to earth ground.
I am not sure yet where this is leading…
it\’s on the \”tip of my tongue.\”quote :I was curious about a frequency to see if it may tie into some of the work that Tesla did on wireless power and energy transmission. Along with some of the observations by Schumann on earth frequencies.not sure how that applies right now with this unit charge stuff.
-
More info from James Goss on the joe cell and unit charging a vehicle – (this one actually precedes the previous post)
This post is in reference to electrically charging a vehicle with a Joe cell. Isolating the chassis of a vehicle from earth ground allows an electrical charge to be placed on the vehicle. Like any metal, a vehicle chassis can be electrically charged and then retain the charge if there is no earth ground reference to bleed off the charge. To isolate a vehicle from earth ground requires insulating the tires from resting on earth. Wood and other insulators suitable for insulating at low voltages will not provide the necessary isolation for voltages in the thousands of volts.
In a past experiment I placed a sheet of 2 inch thick high density styrofoam under each tire. Above and below each sheet of styrofoam a sheet of 3/4 inch plywood was used to protect the foam. Styrofoam provides adequate isolation to prevent current flow between the vehicle and earth when a high voltage charge is placed on a vehicle.
Most all tires today are chemically treated so they will be electrically conductive when higher voltages are generated by static buildup. Being static rated the tires will not allow charge to build up on a vehicle\’s chassis. If a positive or negative charge tries to develop on a vehicle, the conductive tires allows electrons to flow between the earth and chassis, which neutralizes the charge almost immediately.
In the previous test for earth ground reference I used induction techniques to place charge on a vehicle. It proved an earth isolated vehicle could easily become charged and retains the charge for quite some time. It also proved that a vehicle with static rated tires, which gives the vehicle earth ground reference, could not be charged.
I decided to setup the experiment again to see if unit charge from a Joe cell would be able to place a high voltage charge on an earth isolated chassis. The vehicle was the same as in the first experiment, a 1993 Ford F-150. I had been thinking for some time that conductivity of the tires would probably vary depending on the environment of the vehicle. Factors such as humidity, temperature, moisture on the ground, and whether the vehicle was parked or in motion.
This time instead of using induction to place charge on the vehicle I used a high voltage capacitor charged with 5,000 volts to begin with. Touching one terminal of the charged capacitor to the chassis and leaving the other terminal open would allow limited charge to be placed on the chassis. While the tires were still in contact with earth, the chassis would not retain any charge at all. This demonstrates how effective static tires are in preventing voltage buildup on a vehicle.
The test vehicle had been parked in the same location for several days. My idea was to measure temperature of the tires and rims, and then drive the vehicle out on the road to see if a temperature increase would perhaps remove moisture from the tires; reducing their conductivity. The chosen test tire measured 93 degrees on the tire and 85 of the rim while parked. After a 7 mile drive the temperature increased to 100 degrees on the tire
and 94 on the rim. This did make a small difference in charge storage. Now the chassis was showing some ability to store charge for one or two seconds before it was neutralized. Either a negative or positive charge could be placed on the chassis just long enough for a surface voltmeter to register its discharge. Overall there was not that much improvement.For this experiment instead of starting with styrofoam under the tires I decided to use a 1/2 inch thick hard rubber sheet. Each rubber sheet was sandwiched between two sheets of 3/4 inch plywood for protection. This makes the platform 2 inches thick. It\’s more difficult to place 2 inch thick styrofoam underneath the tires than it is the 1/2 inch thick rubber sheets. The styrofoam platform is 3.5 inches thick, making a ramp necessary to drive up on. When one end of the charged capacitor was placed on the chassis, charge was transferred, but did not remain any longer than it did when the tires were directly on earth. Thus there was no need to connect a Joe cell for testing charge transfer while using the rubber.
Next I set up the high density styrofoam platforms. With the vehicle atop the platforms I used the capacitor to do a quick test to see if charge could be retained. Connecting the positive end of the capacitor to the chassis transferred near 1,500 volts to the chassis. The charge remained after the capacitor was removed so I knew the cell might be able to charge the vehicle. I reconnected the positive end of the capacitor and this time I touched the open negative end with my finger to balance the capacitor. Charge transfer was now near 4,000 volts positive to the chassis. This value could be measured anywhere on the vehicle, including the tires.
Next I discharged the vehicle and recharged it with a negative charge. Connecting the negative end of the capacitor to the chassis and leaving the positive end open. Negative charge was transferred to the vehicle and the value was also near 1,500 volts, equal to that of the previous positive charge. Touching the open positive end of the capacitor also increased the charge to near 4,000 volts. Both the positive and negative charges commence dissipating a few minutes after the capacitor was disconnected. However, the capacitor was only connected for a few seconds, while longer charge times might increase charge retention.
Next I prepared the cell for charging the vehicle. It was set atop the engine on a 16 inch square metal plate. The plate was making electrical contact with the ground system of the vehicle. The 12 volt charging battery was placed adjacent to the cell on the same metal plate. The cell had its normal top cap in place and no other connections were made. The vehicle\’s hood was open, engine not running, and a small fan placed three feet from the vehicle to clear vapor from the cell. When the cell was energized by its 12 volt battery, no charge materialized on the chassis. After about 3 minutes a positive charge appeared. A few more minutes passed and the charge measured 60 volts. After a total of 10 minutes the charge was at 78 volts. Five more minutes it was at 136 volts. Thus it was now steadily increasing in value. After a total of 60 minutes the charge was at 384 volts. After 2 hours the charge was almost 1,000 volts and still climbing. This was an average charge rate of about 8 volts per minute. However, the charge rate was not linear.
I only had two hours to run the experiment so I needed to shut down. Before I disconnected the cell I thought I would quickly touch the chassis to see if the field was as sensitive to touch like it normally is when only the cell itself is being charged. To my surprise nothing happened, the field did not collapse and the charge remained at its same value. I then touched the chassis in several locations, about 3 seconds each. The charge only decreased a small amount. Response of the charge was completely different from that of previous experiences I have had with the cell. The vehicle did not want to readily give up its charge. If I am not mistaken the charge has the ability to slightly build back up after being loaded. I will have to check this next time.
The increased charging time appears to add to the ampacity ability of the charge. The cell itself basically has no ampacity at all. I have mentioned several times in earlier posts about how sensitive the field is, and that it seems to collapse at a blink of an eye. Once the large metal mass of the vehicle becomes charged, in this case positive, it has the ability to accept or furnish many more electrons than a cell acting alone is capable of. It\’s not only the metal that becomes charged, everything on the vehicle charges to basically the same value. This includes all plastics and other non metal components, even the window glass.
Normally when this cell is on a workbench and charged in the neighborhood of 10,000 volts, it produces a field that can be measured out to 12 feet or so from the cell. When the charge on this vehicle was near 1,000 volts the field also reached out 12 feet or more. Next test I will allow the vehicle to charge for a longer time to see what its maximum charge value will be.
I believe the most important part of this experiment was that current ampacity of a cell is greatly amplified by the size of the object being charged. I had previously charged large objects with this cell, but nothing compared to the size of this vehicle. With these objects I had not noticed any difference in the ability of the field to maintain itself when touched by hand, it would always collapse instantly, and the cell would have to recharge from scratch. I can see where this amplification factor could perhaps give a cell more possibilities.
About midway through the test the charge rate drastically dropped off. The cell water had dropped below the top of the cylinders and the bubbles could not complete their normal path from cathode to anode on the surface of the water. Standing on styrofoam I added water while the charge was in progress. Unit charge did not decrease in value, and the charge rate went back to normal.
Working up to this experiment I was a little leery about connecting thousands of volts to my truck\’s chassis. Could it possibly damage the onboard electronic systems? Even though a single point charge propagating to all engine and body parts throughout the chassis theoretically should not create current flow through components, I was still skeptical. Also I was concerned about the gas tank and possibilities of arcing internal to the tank. There were no problems encountered.
-
Rob Eklund wrote:
quote :I am just curious, do you know if he ever has checked the area of the unit charge field for a frequency? I am beginning to think (at least in the case I have) that the bowl is serving a type of antenna/reflector combination. If there is a frequency to it, it should be possible to somewhat tune it by the size, shape, and position of the \”antenna\” in relation to the cell,to find a better resonance with the truck/car/motorcycle, or even for healing purposes.Hi Rob,
I don\’t know about frequency measurements.
but if you read the previous posts, and this latest one, you will see that all objects charge up regardless of shape and size,and even whether or not they are \”classically\” oriented to be conductive.
it\’s quite amazing…
I think we\’re getting closer here.Especially where he says that the engine got charged even though the cell was insulated from it.
-
From James Goss – Unit Charging a Vehicle:
\”Hello all,
Unit charge has a characteristic of not always reaching the same charge value each and every time. Temperature and humidity has a lot of influence on charge buildup. During my first encounter with unit charge I witnessed some relatively high charge values being generated by an unloaded Joe cell. It was then several experiments later before I again witnessed charge values in the 15,000 volt range. Thus this same unpredictable charge pattern will probably be normal when charging a vehicle or other large objects.
One of the interesting things about a cell\’s unit charge is that it charges everything in contact with the cell that is not earth grounded. Charge is daisy chained outward from the cell through non conductors as well as conductors. Everything inside the vehicle also receives charge. I haven\’t checked this yet, but I believe this would also include any passengers and their clothing.
In the most recent experiment I determined that an earth isolated vehicle will become electrically charged if a Joe cell and its battery are placed anywhere on the vehicle. The cell doesn\’t have to be placed near the engine in order to electrically charge the engine. In this latest test the cell was placed on a wood support above the engine with no connections to the cell; other than the cell resting on the wood support. Charge was transferred to all areas of the vehicle and reached voltage values near 1,400 volts in three hours. The cell and battery were then placed at several different locations for testing, on the truck\’s tailgate, inside the vehicle, and on top of the vehicle. All locations produced basically the same unit charge values.
The outer cell container for the last two vehicle charging tests has been glass. I have used metal outer containers in previous experiments and both metal and glass seem to allow basically the same unit charge value to develop. However, this is not true for an outer container built with plastic such as PVC. It has a negative affinity and loves to become charged negative. It likes to accept electrons instead of giving them up.
One recent test was using a 6 inch diameter PVC outer container. The PVC had a negative charge already on it, so the positive unit charge had to overcome this before the cell could go positive. Immediately before this test I used the same cell in a glass container. Unit charge reached near 1,000 volts in 2 minutes, and 2,300 volts in 5 minutes. With the PVC container unit charge did occur, but it only reached 250 volts in 10 minutes. Unit charge does not appear to work well with a PVC outer container. This was only one test, but I believe it will prove to be valid.
After completing the above test I made a modification in the isolation technique being used. The vehicle\’s tires were still resting on the same isolation platforms, but now the cell was also isolated from the vehicle by placing 4 inches of styrofoam beneath it. So now the vehicle is isolated from earth ground and the cell is isolated from the vehicle. The cell is now able to charge without having a direct load placed on it and can charge much faster to greater values.
With this setup the cell itself generated 1,000 volts in 1 minute, and 4,800 volts in 10 minutes. While the cell was charging, the vehicle chassis also received charge even though it was isolated from the cell. After 10 minutes the chassis voltage was 270 volts. This was about 200 volts more than when the cell was connected directly to the chassis for the same amount of charge time.\”
-
Rob Eklund wrote:
quote :I found a bottle that seems to work very well for these (Just started my first batch, but it seems to work very well for creating a vortex.The bottle comes with some french vodka in it the brand is called Chambord, it has a upper part that came the closest to the shape that I have found locally. And it has a magnet of some sort in the cap already, I carefully drilled a .25\” (6.35mm) hole in it and am using a repurposed pump from a decrotive fountain for now. I also put some n50 magnets alternating poles, around the neck.
that is an AMAZING bottle .
it\’d be great to find one empty, to not have to drink the Vodka… unless you like that…About the magnets -howdo you feel drinking the water with the alternating poles?
bc, i found that to be too \”aggressive\” –
the south poles create aggressive – Yang water, and the north poles very relaxed, passive YIN water.alternating magnets 3 + 3 = too yang.
all north pole magnets = much too ying.we\’re on a 2 south 4 north balance which seems
to be just right. -
Dendritic Xylem wrote:
quote :What do you think of the whole drama behind Bill Williams replication of the joe cell? Do you think it\’s still dangerous to talk about 100% conversions if successful?yes, i think it would be dangerous to declare (and have the stuff to back it up) 100% conversion.
the Con Trolls (as I like to call them) don\’t mind 20,30, heck, even 50 or 60% fuel mileage improvement.
what they don\’t want are solutions emerging to run cars 100% fuelless.
i\’d wager a person would find themselves threatened, and if they didn\’t relent, they\’d probably end up dead or disappearing.
Sad but true. -
Rob Eklund wrote:
quote :from Moshe via e-mail
\”what is coming from this for me, is that the cell may need to be connected to a 2nd battery in the car – once that is not connected to the chassis. this may make a big difference.
have to experiment with this now.\”My comeent.
This is kind of what I was thinking, cell and battery isolated from the truck, connected only by the tube. The metal of the car should pick up a charge anyway just by being in the area. (If my guess is right).this following brief dialogue between mysself and James Goss addresses this further:
Moshe: \”James, didn\’t you say the cell has to be connected from the cap to the outer sphere? is that electrically connected, or can it just be sitting there, close?\”
James: Unit charge does need reference to the cell\’s outer can. However, it is not necessary to have a standard electrical connection. At this time I am using four 3 inch plastic clamps clipped to the outer can. The cap sets on top of the clamps. Even though they are plastic they connect the cap to the cell so that surface charge reaches the cap. As long as the cap is touching the cell, or in contact with something that is touching the cell, the cap charges.
So… interesting. if the outer sphere / plate of the cell is contacting some aspect of the chassis, without it being an electrical connection, the
charge will build up in the chassis…quote :I was thinking of locating the cell there, next to radiator, below carb level, from there the tube would be running upwards and in a straight line to a point on either the manifold, or the carb.Do you recommend a vacuume set up, or a blind plug to try first?
DEFINITELY vacuum. i wouldn\’t bother with blind plug.
-
Rob Eklund wrote:
My understanding is that it should exit as a stream, not a cone, if that makes sense to you. Schauberger, I think, said it should be like a stream of \”boar urine\” (not sure of the exact animal)[/quote]that is good info. i never knew that.
mine is exiting like a spray…
i wonder what i\’d have to do with my present setup
to get the boar urine effect? -
Rob Eklund wrote:
quote :I did have a question for you. What have you noticed as far as the noises your vortexer makes when you first start it up on a batch of water?Not much really. The pump I am using is silent, and the noise from my vortexer is always the same, with a few exceptions that are unrelated to water, as far as i have noticed.
quote :With the city tap water it starts with a sucking sound, then makes bubbling noises for maybe a few hours, then it gets quiet except for maybe a suction noise now and then.With the spring water both of the batches I have started have only done a little of the sucking noise and were then silent.
that\’s interesting. again, must be related to your setup, the surface tension of the water, and the pressure of your vortexer.
-
More research from James Goss on Unit Charge
Hello all,
Recently I experimented with using a lower input voltage to kick off a Joe cell\’s unit charge; initially I was using 24 volts. In the most recent set of tests a 12 volt battery providing .9 amps of current through the cell was used. More time was required to reach maximum charge, but the 12 volt input placed 13,000 volts of unit charge on the cell in 45 minutes. Rate of charge was 288.8 volts per minute.
When unit charge reaches the neighborhood of 5,000 volts the cell has the ability to produce a small electrical discharge between it and earth grounded objects. When a hand or any other ground referenced object is placed near the cell an electrical arc can be initiated. Corona discharge also begins to occur around 5,000 volts, thus for voltages above 5,000 volts the cap terminal needs to have round smooth edges to help prevent corona from bleeding off the charge. I normally use either a round sphere or toroid shaped terminal for the overall best results.
Any shape metal cell cap, be it flat round or square, tends to increase unit charge to some degree. It first appeared that a cell cap, which acts as a voltage multiplier, needed to be of a precise design and location. It now looks as if unit charge will respond to any shape cell cap. A metal plate can be placed on its side in a vertical position instead of a flat position atop the cell, and voltage gain will be near the same as that of a flat positioned plate. Basically if a cell is physically touching metal, voltage gain will occur. When I say voltage gain I am referring to a cell developing more unit charge than it would normally produce if no metal cap is in use.
Here is something I recently come across: The metal cell cap can be placed underneath the cell with the cell sitting on it and voltage gain still occurs. It does not seem to matter how large the metal object is that the cell is sitting on, the object becomes charged. On the other hand, using a cap on the top and bottom at the same time seems to reduce overall unit charge. This indicates it\’s not only the mass of the metal in contact with a cell that enhances unit charge, shaping of the electric field surrounding a cell is also a factor.
Next I reduced the 12 volts for a current of .75 amps through the cell. Referenced to a ten minute charge time, unit charge reached 3,600 volts. This was a 360 volt per minute charge rate. Reduced down to .4 amps, unit charge reached 2,400 volts in ten minutes, a charge rate of 240 volts per minute. At .2 amps a charge rate of 120 volts per minute produced 1,200 volts in ten minutes. At .1 amp 600 volts was reached, a charge rate of 60 volts per minute. At .05 amps a ten minute charge produced 250 volts, 25 volts per minute. Finally, at .02 amps unit charge reached 80 volts, 8 volts per minute.
Unit charge appears to vary almost directly with cell current. Overlooking measurement inaccuracies unit charge in all probability does vary directly with cell current. With lower value currents most bubbles become too small to see, but unit charge continues. I decided to use a 9 volt transistor battery as the input voltage. Unit charge reached 2,800 volts in 20 minutes, a 140 volt per minute charge rate.
Thanks,
James Goss -
James Goss\’ response:
Hello Moshe,
I would like to test one of your cells for unit charge. Its sphere shape seems to be ideal for developing charge. I will e-mail you to get the details.
Thanks for sharing C.M.\’s post, it was very interesting; especially the influence his cell had on his household and truck. Not being familiar with the moe-joe cell I am only guessing, but I would say that his cell being supplied with a 6 volt battery could easily develop several thousand volts of unit charge. It will all depend on how well the cell and battery are isolated from earth ground. If a positive unit charge is being developed, negative ions will be a byproduct of the cell. It would almost be the equivalent of C.M. living under a waterfall.
Negative ions make most people feel good, me included. While unit charge tests are underway, a small fan moving vapor from the cell fills the surroundings with negative charge. Like C.M. said, \”Sleep lately has been great and fulfilling.\” Unit charge can easily charge dust and dirt particles, thus I can understand how particles might be attracted from crevices.
Thanks,
James -
ahhh, i see.
it probably is because the spring water has a naturally higher orgone \”living life energy\” content and so its surface tension is higher, which makes it move through the vortexer slower, and so it keeps a higher level.
it takes some time to get the dead tap water up to that level.nice pic. good innovative design.