Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 489493
  • *Total Topics: 14402
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 207
  • *Total: 213

Facebook

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power  (Read 591408 times)

Offline H2earth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Interim Site of the H2earth Institute (under Construction)
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2007, 01:26:26 AM »
Dyamios,

Your dogma is getting in the way of your education.  The Meyer WFC works, and we have multiple examples of HHO being created at 1.5 wh/ltr,  0.383 wh/ltr., and even 0.0 wh/ltr.  When the free electron current released from the water is counted, they are all net current producers, and, in effect, the Hydroxy is then better than free from an energy standpoint.


How many times is this going to be scrapped up off of the basement floor?

I don't want to be a pessimist or anything, but really, why is there any rhyme or reason to believe that pulsed (essentially AC) electricity will somehow fracture water molecules any better than regular DC. There is no electrical resonant frequency of water to be found. It physically does not exist.

H2O doesn't even vibrate in any electrical fashion, let alone has the capacity to hold resonant energy. The simple reaction occurring during electrolysis is merely extra electrons being transfered to form gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen (diagrammed below):
H20 + e- -> H2 + O2

The reason there is less energy use is because of the minute gap between the electrodes. The smaller the gap, the less distance the electrons and ions have to move to form new molecules.

The reason the water heats up is because when the water molecules fall apart when extra electrons are supplied, the various atoms must migrate through the water itself to the various electrodes, where it finally forms the gaseous form. As these particles move, they bump into other molecules and atoms, and add entropy (in the form of heat) to the system. This is INEVITABLE and ALWAYS occurs no matter what kind of frequency is used. The less gap, the less chance for the particles to bump into each other, therefore creating less heat, but heat will ALWAYS be produced.

Therefore electrolysis can NEVER under ANY type of circumstance be more than 99% efficient.

First, there is no similarity between AC current and pulsed DC as employed in the WFC.

Second, the compound resonance in the WFC is clearly evident to experimenters.  There is an electrical resonance between the inductors (Resonant Charging Choke coils), there is an electrical resonance within the intraelectrode gap itself within the water, and, finally, there is an acoustical resonance between the cylindrical electrodes, which is somehow phase coupled to the electrical resonances.  The electrical resonance involves a phase delay between the pulses to the electrodes, which has the effect of inhibiting current flow into the cell; the acoustic resonance produces a standing wave which inhibits ion transport.  Both of these contribute to dielectric breakdown in the water, which is where electrons are ripped from the water (by voltage alone) producing gas in the process.

Actually, what about the Water Fuel Cell even resembles electrolysis?   1) There is no electrolye;  2) There is NO current admitted to the water, in a proper system;  3) No heating occurs in the water as it produces gas; 4) The gas produced is Hydroxy (aka HHO or "Brown's Gas"), not differentiated Hydrogen & Oxygen; and 5) All of the work is performed by voltage potential alone.


Stanley Meyers had a flawed understanding of the process of electrolysis, and his theory was debunked by the patent office.

Why make such demonstrably FALSE statements?

Actually, in a Sec. 101 technical appeals hearing by the U.S. Patent Office, Meyer's fundamental "Methods" patent was issued because, upon inspection of the working device by engineering examiners, it did exactly as he claimed it was doing.


I'm begging everyone who reads this: PLEASE learn the rudimentary science before running off go blindly believe somebody. Most, if not all, of the theories here are flawed in some basic way (it goes without saying that the laws of thermodynamics are excluded from this, as every theory violates this).

Enough of Stanley Meyers. He was a fraud. His theory was flawed. He was weighed, measured, and found guilty. What does it take to get people to realize that water is NOT an energy source. At most its an inefficient energy carrier.

Hydrogen is only the future of MOVING energy, NOT making it. Please people, understand this!

The old 'rudimentary science' is obsolete, and all of this evidence posted by different experimenters proves it.  A growing list of independent replications is establishing the viability of "Hydrogen-on-Demand" from water, with no (or negligible) net external eneregy input.  Water is definitely a fuel, when used as an electron source for Radiant Energy circuits.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline starcruiser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
    • Starcruiser's Place
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2007, 03:17:37 AM »
It appears to me that Dyamios may be trying to dissuade us from following a path that will free us from Big Oil? I could be wrong but???


Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2007, 07:49:45 PM »
Yeah, it does indeed. History is behind us with Dangel Dingles work since he has had this type of stuff working since 1968. That really makes it hard too say it's all BS, like this guy Dyamios is trying too do that, or he is so stuck on the old ways and he is willing to give his life in it's defense. So many lost souls out there.

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7773
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2007, 04:59:07 AM »
Faraday's is 2.4 watts / hour / liter.


Just to not confuse other people, I must correct you a bit:
It must be 2.4 Watts x 1 hour long applied  /  liter.

so it is 2.4 Watthours of energy per Liter.

( so it is multiplied with the hour not divided by the hour...)


Quote
Volts x Amps = Watts

12 x 0.51 = 6.12 watts
the generation is around 7 cc/sec of H2 + O2

This converts to 4.66 CC of H2/sec

and NerzDishual wrote:

Quote
@Harti_Berlin

Do you mean 2.4 Ampere/hour?

2 moles of electrons for one mole (22.4 liter) of H2.
2*96500= 193000 coulomb for 22.4 liters.
193000/3600/22.4 = 2.4 amp/hour for one liter.

You need more than one volt (theorically 1.23 volts but in practice almost 1.6 volts). This 'leads out' to about 2.4* 1.6 =/= 4 watts/hour for one liter (or 4 kWh per cubic meter) of h2.  Leads it out not?


So the real question I have now,
must the Faraday law be
2.4 Watthours per liter (H2 plus O2) gas
or per Liter H2 gas alone ?
So do we have to remove the O2 gas from the equation ?

If yes, we would need to generate more HHO gas for 2.4 Watthours of energy input....

Can somebody clarify this ?
I have been reading about this somewhere on the web but don?t find
the link anymore...
Many thanks.

Regards,Stefan.


Offline kewlhead

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2007, 05:36:15 AM »
Compound Resonance....H2EARTH, thank you for that post !!!! and if Im not mistaken you may have just coined that term "Compound Resonance" You were a first HERO among alot of us o boys....and Im proud that you were the one to clear up Dyamios unfortunate pleas to piss all over one of the GREATS, just wanted to say Thank You.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2007, 05:36:15 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ravzz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2007, 10:08:25 AM »
Hi everyone,

I've uploaded two more videos with the new leads connected up until the bottom of the WFC.

A lot of small bubble generation this time around. WFC gets fogged up. Need to check if there's any improvement in the outputs. The leads dont get hot....but need to check with prolonged use.

WFC leaking...so cant do the gas output test right now. This thing will take time I guess.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WsKOdxLIJU


2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9XrLOudwRw


Stefan i'll try and do what you asked me to once the leaks are rectified.

Feed back would be appreciated and any ideas on doing something else to the WFC to improve efficiency further.



Ravi

Offline ravzz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2007, 04:24:57 PM »
The following images were taken when I was conditioning the WFC a few months ago. Initially the outputs remained ver very low but gradually increased with the conditioning progressing...

Don't worry if the generation is low at the beginning



First pic is conditioning at 2 Amps.

Second pic is scum on the surface in between conditioning.

Third pic is scum at the end of the conditioning...when you need to change the water for the next round of conditioning.

Fourth pic is generation at 5 Amps.

Fifth pic is scum again

Sixth and Seventh pics are the scum holding on to the tube edges which need to be cleaned with a brush only...do not touch the pipes with bare hands.


Ravi

« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 05:50:43 PM by ravzz »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2007, 04:24:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7773
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2007, 05:54:41 AM »



2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9XrLOudwRw


Ravi

Is this just 12 Volts x 0.5amps = 6 Watts only ?
Really ? if yes, you really have a huge gas output for
such a low input power...

Do you have a scope and can show the waveforms
at each pipe pair ?

What frequency do you use and can you also show
your chokes ?

Why do you power each pipe pair individually and don?t
put them all in parallel at the device , so why are you using
so many wires there ?

Regards, Stefan.

Offline ravzz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2007, 08:08:43 AM »
Hi Stefan,

Yes the current draw by the freq gen is 12V 0.5 Amps its from 12 Volt 10 Amp DC converter that I use. The current reading you see is the input draw to the freq gen from the DC converter. Everything you need to make this unit is in the updated D14.pdf in the link below

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

including the inductors....which are very very important. Then comes the conditioning which is crucial....how to is posted on oupower. Its a specific procedure that has to be followed!

Dave who was the first to replicate stan meyer system had got outputs in the range of 250% OU (without the inductors, should be more now...he hasnt talked about the outputs with the inductors). I have made my system based on his inputs and all these inputs on how you can get these kind of outputs are already posted on the oupower forum and partially here.

No I dont have a scope. My system was slightly modified and I have so many leads going in as I can control the number of tubes that can be operated without opening the WFC. I have 18 leads coming out of the WFC 9 +ve and 9 -ve.....with this I can run on one tube or six like daves or all 9....you basically have an easier control on the number of tubes to be used for experimentation without dismantling the WFC. Dave's and Stanleys systems had a spacing of 1/16" (1.5875mm) and my pipes have a gap of less than 0.670mm (could be the main reason for the higher efficiency in my unit) and im using 9 tube sets of 9" length and the inner being 1/2" more than the outer for connections. Dave used 6 tubes of 5" length for his 250% OU. Stans were 9 tubes of 18" length on his demonstration electrolyzer and in one of the videos available, there are claims that he's making 1700% OU over Faradays. When compared to this efficiency I still have some more work to do. Dave's electrolyzer generating HHO with inductors as per the updated D14..... video link...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiA4z_Kpgg4


Stefan the excess gas outputs were documented quite sometime ago by Dave. There are a few people who have connected the D14 system to vehicles.....here's a link....this guy claims his mileage increased from 28 miles/gal to 45 miles/gal....thats an increase of 17 miles per gallon.....he's even showing you how you can tune a WFC with an AM Radio!!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fFp3CJZMTw


Everything you need to make this system is in D14 and the data which is required to make this system efficient and how to go about it has been posted by me on the oupower and here. You get very very low gas generation in the beginning when you are conditioning like you see in the pictures above and below. I dont know why it works the way it works or the theory behind why or how it works.......it just works!......Make it follow the procedure and you will achieve OU over fardays!!! I've put in efforts without thinking it would fail and it didnt...

Im posting a few pictures of WFC under construction and progress....

The wall thickness of both the pipes is 14 SWG or 2.032 mm

Ravi
« Last Edit: August 25, 2007, 09:59:35 AM by ravzz »

Offline ravzz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2007, 10:12:57 AM »
I'm unable to connect to oupower.....incase someone can get through....the info & data could be copy pasted here...

Just incase.....

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2007, 10:12:57 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ravzz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2007, 03:16:26 PM »


Hi everyone,



You need to make changes as per the updated D14! the older one doesnt work that well ! If you already have an old one then check the differences and modify.


PLEASE USE THE UPDATED D14 CIRCUITS ONLY NOT THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS.


Patrick had updated these on June 2nd 2007.


Incase you have doubts please got to the following link and compare with the page 7 circuit (with inductors):

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf



Ravi

Offline TheCell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2007, 03:18:20 PM »
Hello ravzz

you should find a way to measure the volts and amps of one cell with a oscillograph.
If you don't have one , then try to rent one.
Or maybe dave lawton can do this.I don't know his E-Mail .
Specially when the cell is in a conditioned mode, it surely does not behave like normal capacitor.


Offline ravzz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2007, 03:55:01 PM »
Hi,


Im not sure if I can give Dave's Id. But you could ask Patrick to convey this to Dave....theyre in regular touch...

Patrick Kelley's id:

engpjk@yahoo.co.uk



Ravi

Offline Super God

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2007, 04:05:29 PM »
My setup was gonna be something like 30 tubes that were 4 inches long.  I didn't know that longer tubes yeilded more efficiency.  It's so damn expensive to get good tubes though!  Whew!  But anyway, how would you scale this system up to run a car?  That's my goal.  Maybe I could just cram as many electrolyzers as possible under the hood?  Space is my concerm here... :)

Thank you ravzz!!


Offline ravzz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2007, 04:38:02 PM »
From what i remember seeing in one of Stans water car video he had his buggy running on his demonstration electrolyser.

But he even claimed that it was almost 1700% OU over faradays....so theres lot more work to be done to reach those efficiencies!

Check this guy who's already fixed the D14 unit to his car.....he claims to have gotten an increase from 28 miles/gal to 45 miles/gal!! Thats an increase of 17 miles to a gallon!! dont know who he is....in case anyone knows ....please post the info about him!!

Check the video on how he tunes his WFC with an AM Radio and his claims.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fFp3CJZMTw


This should be of help to you Super God


Ravi


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2007, 04:38:02 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: