02-11-2002
“ Stripping the electrons.”
Aim.
* To explore the ambiguity of the above often quoted Joe statement.
* To explain in simple terms the scientific view on the subject.
* My ten cent’s worth.
Background.
In Joe’s explanation of how the motor is ‘ powered ’ by the mysterious force, his most recent theories are:
1. The cell is used as some sort of sink that depletes ‘ strips ’ the motor of free electrons.
2. The pointing of the Cell outlet tube in the general direction of the
motor will achieve this result by some sort of mysterious attraction.
3. As the free electrons are not now available for normal electrical conductivity
( as they have been stripped ), a spark will not eventuate when the spark plug leads are held close to the block.
4. For all practical purposes the metal of the engine is now in effect
a very bad conductor of electricity, so much so that the only thing
that the ignition spark can ignite is a mysterious substance that is
present in the intake charge.
5. On the ignition of this ‘ X ’ substance, the moisture in the air is instantly condensed.
6. The above rapid condensation results in an very high vacuum that is utilised to
‘ suck ’ the piston up the bore and thus we have a resultant rotational force.
7. The motor runs at any speed from 1 revolution per minute up to 10,000 or more revolutions per minute.
8. The only outputs from the tail pipe is a white mist and water.
Additionally, the motor is completely silent in operation.
9. The motor and water temperature drop to around 4 degrees C. In some instances the radiator has iced over.
Comment.
To state that the above is ludicrous to the extreme ( using present scientific knowledge ) is an understatement.
Whilst it is very easy throw out the baby with the bath water, I would
like to discuss the above claims and at least give you the reader
another viewpoint.
Conventional science.
Joe cell.
* Basically the Joe cell is classed as an electrochemical cell.
These cell can be further broken down as galvanic if they are employed
to produce electrical energy and electrolytic when they consume
electricity from an external source.
* As you are no doubt well aware, an electrolytic cell consists of two
conductors called electrodes, each immersed in a suitable electrolyte
solution.
Yes, electrolyte solution, for contrary to any claims made by Joe, you
need some conductivity to have ion mobility from one electrode to its
pair.
No, it does not mean that you have to add electrolyte, for the chosen
water that you have may already have enough ‘ impurities ’ in it to
make it sufficiently conductive.
However, if you cannot get sufficient current flow with reasonable
voltages ( up to 200 volts for example ), then the use of electrolyte
is a very logical step.
Any good chemistry book will explain at length how electrolysis takes
place. I have no intention to enter into a discourse on the topic in
this update.
* The introduction of the neutral plate or plates makes the Joe cell
different to a standard electrochemical cell. These type of cells were
well known before Joe
‘ discovered ’ the neutral plate topology, but it was Joe that combined
this type of cell and the motor car. The rest as they say is history.
Suffice to say that the ‘ magic ’ can only occur when there are more
than two electrodes with an interposing additional neutral.
* During the charging process, we apply current to the cell, so the cell is classed as a electrochemical cell.
When the cell is used to run a car and is running in stage 3 mode with
no current input, it is classed as a galvanic cells as it is producing
‘ electrical ’ energy and not the other way around.
Electrons and Ions.
It is unfortunate for the experimenter that Joe uses scientific words
in a very loose manner. As some of us have been trained in a discipline
that has rigid and set definitions for certain words, it is very hard
to eliminate the conventional meanings to words such as frequency,
magnetism, electrons, current, voltage and many others that Joe
ascribes a meaning to as he sees fit.
This ambiguity coupled with Joe well known dislike of the scientific
fraternity makes the translation of his ‘ discoveries ’ a difficult if
not impossible task.
As the whole crux of the matter lies in the “ stripping of the
electrons ” as the modus operandi of the motor operation, it is vital
for us to try and unravel exactly what Joe does mean.
I present this update as my personal understanding of the matter as of
today. Tomorrow is a completely new ball game. < grin >
Electron.
* As far as we know at present, the electron carries the fundamental
quantity of electric charge. It is the negatively charged elementary
particle that is the constituent of all atoms.
* The electron in each atom surrounds the nucleus in groupings called shells.
* Electrons travel quite freely through metals, giving rise to electric current.
The force that keeps electrons in a conductive material ( like the
engine block ) is quite small and electrons can indeed be “ stripped ”.
As Joe is claiming that there is no current flow possible after the
stripping of the electrons this at first sight sounds may sound quite
logical. As there are no electrons left as they have been “ stripped ”,
no electrons thus no possibility of current flow.
However just like an ice berg we are only looking at the tip of the problem.
Not the least of these being that the electron structure is responsible
for the chemical properties of the atom ( eg. resulting in the motor
being a metal ).
Logically Joe cannot mean all electrons, so what does he mean?
“ Stripping ”.
As this word is the crux of the problem, what is being stripped and how?
Joe tells us that it is electrons, yes but which ones?
These cannot be the localised ones, as these are located in the
vicinity of the nuclei of the contributing atoms. These atoms cannot
move beyond this area.
That leaves the delocalised ones. These electrons are not associated
with individual atoms or identifiable chemical bonds, thus we could
strip these without the motor changing elements. < grin >
These delocalised electrons are shared collectively by all the
constituent atoms of the car motor. Picture the metal of the motor as a
three dimensional arrangement of metal ions through which the
delocalised electrons are free to travel.
Needless to say we would have to strip all components of the
delocalised electrons and not just the block, at least that is how I
see it.
Of course if the process is selective you may be able to just strip the
aluminium or the iron or whatever, only Joe knows the details and he is
not sharing, this is presuming that he knows.
I personally find it highly doubtful that even if you could strip these
delocalised electrons out of the metal that you would achieve an
insulator ( or a semi conductor ) as would be required for the motor
not to conduct a high voltage current.
Naturally, I am willing to be proven wrong by Joe any day that he
allows me to put some test equipment on his motor. I am not holding my
breath waiting for this day of revelation however. < grin >
* So, how do we strip? Let us look at some common ways that we normally liberate “ strip ” these electrons.
a. Thermal emission. If we heat a metal we can ‘ boil ’ electrons off
the hot surface. An example is the hot heater ( cathode ) in your
conventional television tube. It is the impact of these electrons on
the screen that creates the image that you view.
b. Field emission. We can ‘ rip ’ electrons off the appropriately
shaped electrode with a sufficiently high intensity field. The pins on
a ioniser is an example of this. We use these released electrons as a
method in making the air in our homes or car ‘ healthier ’.
c. Ionisation. If an electron travels at a high enough velocity, it can
displace another electron from a neutral molecule causing ionisation.
This is also known as electron collision.
* Back to Joe and the ‘ stripping ’. the problem of course is, what
method is being employed to strip the motor ( if any )?
It cannot be thermal emission as we have do not have a sufficiently hot
surface nor the potential difference in the cell, or anywhere else for
that matter.
In actuality to strip a mass the size of a car engine that is not
contained in a vacuum chamber and that is not suitably isolated would
be a mammoth exercise.
It cannot be field emission as we do not have sufficiently high field intensity ( as understood in conventional terms ).
That leaves us with ionisation. Using present known methods of
ionisation, there is no known output of the Joe cell that should be
able to perform this feat ‘ in my opinion only ).
Let me expand a bit on ions before resuming the topic.
Ions.
Atmospheric ions consists of atoms or molecules carrying a negative or
positive charge. I am referring to the air drawn into the intake of an
internal combustion motor.
This also applied to the air in the vicinity of the cell.
An ion is formed from a neutral group by the loss or gain of one or more electrons.
Atmospheric ions can be formed in many ways, eg. heat, ultra violet
light, X-rays, cosmic rays, radioactive materials and electrons
accelerated in electric fields.
Incidentally the splitting of water in the Joe cell produces an
abundance of ions, the central negative cylinder producing copious
negative ions.
This ion production ceases on the removal of the current from the cell.
And briefly, an electric field differential can be used to increase the
mobility of the ions, ( as in the ion engine ) but this is not utilised
to any great degree in the Joe cell/motor setup.
I started by quoting Joe’s explanation as to how the motor works. I
have tried to understand him from a conventional scientific view point
and a layman’s view point.
I have failed to come up with a suitable answer.
Remarks.
Until ( if ever ) Joe is prepared to use conventional scientific terms
or elaborate on his explanation, I personally cannot come up with
suitable explanation to support his claims.
I am further worried by another point ( point 9 above ) where he claims
that there is a reduction of temperature on the condensation of the
charge.
All evaporative coolers would stop cooling if Joe was right, he is not.
In case you have forgotten old school days science, I include the following chart to completely deny this possibility.
Process Changes Heat gained or lost by the air.
From To
Condensation vapour liquid 2500 J/g or 600 cal/g
Deposition vapour ice 2833 J/g or 680 cal/g
Evaporation liquid vapour -2500 J/g or -600 cal/g
Freezing liquid ice 333 J/g or 80 cal/g
Melting ice liquid -333 J/g or -80 cal/g
Sublimation ice vapour -2833 J/g or -680 cal/g
To convert the figures above to British Thermal Units (BTUs), you can
use 1 BTU equals 1055 joules or 1 BTU equals 252 calories. To convert
grams to ounces, use 1 ounce equals 28.35 grams. A pound equals 16
ounces. Ounces and pounds are not units of mass, but are often used
this way.
As you can clearly see to convert from a vapour to a liquid ( as
claimed ) you gain 600 calories per gram and not the other way round.
Thus the motor cannot work as proposed by Joe ( and others )
I have previously covered the topic of the so called implosive (
suction ) force and the resultant effect on the inlet and exhaust
valves.
I have previously covered the topic that the ‘ suction ’ force cannot
be greater than unity and thus would be far smaller than the explosive
force resulting from petrol.
Summary.
Joe’s claims in the above 9 points are a great problem to me. From a
scientific viewpoint they are nonsensical. I have explained very
briefly some of the anomalies, with plenty more to be seen at a
slightly deeper look.
Removing my blinkers and looking for possible answers leaves me where I am now, namely with more questions than answers.
A one sentence summary would read that the claims are not provable by present day theory.
Conclusion.
Where does the above lead us?
It comes down to a very simple and old saying, “ extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof ”.
We have the extraordinary claim ( Joe’s not mine ), but there is no proof whatsoever let alone “ extraordinary ”.
Please don’t read me wrong, the car will run on a force ( call it what
you will ), this has been proven by many people now.
I have seen a car run on ‘ force X ’ with a cold motor and a hot motor.
I have seen a car run noisily and silently with ‘ force X ’.
I have no troubles whatsoever with the fact that a car will run without petrol on the ‘ force ’.
I have great difficulty with Joe’s version of the above reality.
***********************************