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.

User Menu

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

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 482318
  • *Total Topics: 14218
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 165
  • *Total: 168

Facebook

Author Topic: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent  (Read 19072 times)

Offline soodesune

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« on: January 11, 2009, 05:40:45 AM »
I feel like I've read every news paper article, forum post, watched every youtube video, and really done my home work.  I've also done quite a bit of my own experimentation and calculation.  I'm an engineer by training and profession.

In trying to duplicate the Stan Meyer water fuel cell patents, it's important to sort out all the pseudo-science he put in there.  For the sake of the patent, it's doesn't matter one bit what's happening at the atomic level.  All that matters are the claims and the preferred embodiment.  So I've blacked out all of the parts where Meyer is describes what happens at the atomic level.  Besides, given his resources, and background, how could he know what's happening at the atomic level?  This will allow us to focus on the useful parts of the patent.

There are two parts that really bother me.  I've highlighted them both.  In the first he describes the transformer as having 200x600 turns.  It's high school physics to know that this gives 3x step up in voltage.  Meyer says it gives him "in excess of five times".

The second big problem, is the statment that "resonance was achived at 0kHz"  This is clearly wrong.

I've searched for some opinions about these two obvious problems, and didn't even find them mentioned in any forums, so I'd like to start a discussion here.  What do you think?

The pdf of the patent with my edits was too big to post here, you can get it from: http://www.wikiupload.com/download_page.php?id=88074

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« on: January 11, 2009, 05:40:45 AM »

Offline Alien509

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2009, 06:30:12 AM »
I feel like I've read every news paper article, forum post, watched every youtube video, and really done my home work.  I've also done quite a bit of my own experimentation and calculation.  I'm an engineer by training and profession.

In trying to duplicate the Stan Meyer water fuel cell patents, it's important to sort out all the pseudo-science he put in there.  For the sake of the patent, it's doesn't matter one bit what's happening at the atomic level.  All that matters are the claims and the preferred embodiment.  So I've blacked out all of the parts where Meyer is describes what happens at the atomic level.  Besides, given his resources, and background, how could he know what's happening at the atomic level?  This will allow us to focus on the useful parts of the patent.

There are two parts that really bother me.  I've highlighted them both.  In the first he describes the transformer as having 200x600 turns.  It's high school physics to know that this gives 3x step up in voltage.  Meyer says it gives him "in excess of five times".

The second big problem, is the statment that "resonance was achived at 0kHz"  This is clearly wrong.

I've searched for some opinions about these two obvious problems, and didn't even find them mentioned in any forums, so I'd like to start a discussion here.  What do you think?

The pdf of the patent with my edits was too big to post here, you can get it from: http://www.wikiupload.com/download_page.php?id=88074

Actually this part is clearly right because resonance in this case could not be measurable....Just trust me- I'm a pro :D Here is a quote that might help you. "The glass shattered because of resonance and the force that shattered it, did not come from the noise itself"

Read up on the tokamak, if you can figure out a solution to the atom smasher's biggest problem then you will understand. One thing though- it's better to go green with hydrogen then to have toxic waste- obviously, and yes it does "bypass" all thermonuclear interaction.

I think ITER is nothing more than an attempt to grow a star here on the earth  :D Just watch out for the pin hole leaks because they usually don't hold up too well  ;) ESPECIALLY UNDER NON CONVENTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES- I thought you guys were scientists!

"The ITER project confronts numerous technically challenging issues. French physicist Sébastien Balibar, director of research at the CNRS said We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box.[19][20]" wiki

The BOX- yeah let's reconsider that one.... I think there was a reason it was built in water instead buddy. Do yourself a favor and keep it simple. Build the Hydrogen and keep the water burning- consistently! Because we all know what usually happens when the water "Runs out" with deuterium/tritium at 500MW.

But then again, what could be funner than lighting a helium balloon and watching it float up. ;D I'd propose a very tiny
 tiny tiny scale model if your going to go deuterium/tritium and only use that for space ships. The EPG is much safer-

Here is an earlier derivative of the technology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdUAliVf8o Pay attention to the clock in the video.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 08:34:58 AM by Alien509 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2009, 02:53:12 AM »
Soodesune:

   You're right about the many errors in Meyer's documents. But considering the mass of info he put out, then I guess we can expect a few legitimate ones. There is just too many ridiculous claims and a few false flags he uses to hide the real theory from would-be builders.
  I just thought the "0 Khz" was a typo.
    I've been doing quite a bit of experimenting also and after working in electronic circuitry for the past 40 years I find there is still much to learn..
  I 've found using my scope that once resonance is attained that no matter if the source voltage is a uni-polar square wave, triangular or whatever -  the wave across the wfc will change to a perfect ac sine wave.
  And that "blocking diode"  only keeps any kind of resonance from happening.
   Upon studying this sine wave, I kept pondering on this idea.
 If we assume that the bottom negative portion of the wave is 180 degrees out of phase with the top positive portion, wouldn't it be nice if we could shift it back so that it lines up and occurs in the same instant of time as the positive portion!
   So now the electric force between the 2 plates of the cell would be doubled. W'ed now have a positive anode  voltage pulling on the negative atomic particles and an equal but negative cathode voltage pulling on the positive particles.
  Not only have we doubled the electric field intensity but because of the opposing electric fields we have just about eliminated the current flow through the water.
   I finally got around to winding a bifilar resonant coil and after hooking up a circuit, I connected my dual-trace scope to the plates of the cell. Lo and behold the two sine wave forms were exactly 180 deg. out of phase.
Keep experimenting.

Offline soodesune

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2009, 04:57:21 AM »
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.  That reminds me of another bit of strangeness with this patent.  The inductors are called out as air core.  The inductance of an air core inductor 1" in diameter, 100 turns is almost nothing, especially when compared to the inductance of the transformer (600 turns around ferrite).  If this is correct, then the whole setup is very sensitive to having the right inductance, which makes the exact type of ferrite used in the transformer very important.  Unfortunatly the Siemens catalog Meyer mentions in the patent isn't around any more, and Siemens isn't in the ferrite business any more either.  If anyone has been able to find the exact specs of Meyers ferrite (meaning it's designed magnetic permeability), please share.

I did try bifilar wound inductors, as you stated you had better luck with them, but my results were no different than with the standard wound inductor.  Could you take a few pictures of your oscilloscope, with/without bifilar coils?  I would be happy to share some pictures of my setup to, as I believe it to be an exact replicate of what's described in the patent (with the exception of the unknown permeability of the ferrite of course).

And again, thanks for the reasonable, thought out reply.


Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3379
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2009, 04:35:52 PM »
Hi Folks,

I think you mention the ring core from Meyer's 4936961 patent:  In the Example of a fuel cell circuit of FIG. 1, a water capacitor is included. The step-up coil is formed on a conventional toroidal core formed of a compressed ferromagnetic powered material that will not itself become permanently magnetized, such as the trademarked "Ferramic 06# "Permag" powder as described in Siemens Ferrites Catalog, CG-2000-002-121, (Cleveland,  Ohio) No. F626-1205". The core is 1.50 inch in diameter and 0.25 inch in thickness. A primary coil of 200 turns of 24 gauge copper wire is provided and coil of 600 turns of 36 gauge wire comprises the secondary winding.

If so, then here is some info on a substitute ring from Palomar, this was discussed at waterfuelcell forum on Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:22 am by a member ,USF_Engineer/Scientist, there, see this link:   http://www.waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=260&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=15 

Here is another thread on the VIC transformer from also the waterfuelcell forum: http://www.waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=333 

So it turns out Siemens was bought up by Epcos hence maybe the Epcos ring cores are also worth studying, besides the Palomar ring.

rgds,  Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2009, 04:35:52 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Room3327

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2009, 08:35:14 PM »
Hi I am new and would just like to add a little to this discussion.  I also have been studying the Stanley Meyers patent and IMO there is a major point of his that is little talked about here, at least that I can find.  And that is, he says very clearly that his process of splitting water is voltage dependant and not current dependant.  In other words he is using High Voltage instead of high current to split the water.  The purpose of the VIC circuit was to minimize current and increase the voltage.  When we say increase the voltage he was talking > 40,000 Volts across the water fuel cell.  To accomplish this his transformer stepped up the input voltage driving a bifilar wound HV coil ( thousands of turns ).  This bifilar coil is built as a flyback transformer and operates with the pulses applied to the primary winding, because of how this all works it can all be put on one core, as long as all coils proper polarity is observed.  When pulsed the output of the flyback + and - go in opposite directions, doubling the flyback voltage. That is, if each coil has a 20,000 volt flyback voltage then total voltage is 40,000 volts across the cell.  That is all that the VIC is, what it does and how it works.  Stanley was using very high voltage (40,000 volts) and low current (5ma). Now I have found that water fuel cells don't work well on AC voltage they work much better on DC therefore the diode in Stanley's patent. So what about the resonance he mentions, it can only be running the VIC transformer at its resonance to keep input current to a minimum.  All of what he was doing was minimizing total current and total power usage. I would also like to mention that the patent drawing of the VIC shows an incorrect connection of the bifilar coil it will not work connected as shown.

I hope this helps and maybe clarifies some things for all.
Room3327

Offline Room3327

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2009, 09:12:07 PM »
PS Sood,
      A good core to build a VIC on would be a color TV flyback transformer core, and there are a lot available right now.  I would also like to mention that at the voltage levels I am talking about a bifilar coil really won't do. Because the two output leads are side by side the magnet wire insulation wont handle the voltage between them so it really should be split into 2 HV windings on the same core.  Special care needs to be taken with the windings to be able to handle the HV and I would recommend the output leads to the cell are made of Auto ignition wire.

Room3327

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2009, 09:12:07 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2009, 04:59:37 AM »
Soodesune:
   Haven't done any picture posting before, but will give it a shot.
1st one is the 4.5 volt p-p square-wave source voltage.
2nd is the wave-forms on the capacitor plates. Measured p-p is 44 volts.
3rd is the wave-forms with only a single resonant coil in one leg. Again voltage is 44 p-p.
Bottom trace is 7 volts p-p which I think is just stray hum pickup.
I am using a 680pf capacitor to simulate the wfc. frequency on all is 23 KHZ.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 05:43:03 AM by Garfield »

Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2009, 05:45:22 AM »
Had to delete pictures as they were too big for screen. Will do over again so keep checking.

Offline CrazyEwok

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2009, 06:25:15 AM »
here is a thought that i haven't seen considdered... Using the concept of a Tesla Coil to step up the voltage... having a large outter coil and then the middle being a chain of bifilar coils running up the center... i haven't seen it tested or even ran in reverse (bifilar on teh outside) be interesting to say the least. Find out which end of your recieving coil is + and - and attach them straight to your electrodes should be high voltage at the least. Then all you have to do is pulse the delivery coil with different frequencys and such should almost harmonize itself... in theory...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2009, 06:25:15 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2009, 06:06:00 PM »
Soodesune:
       Hope these come out ok.

Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2009, 02:57:24 AM »
Soodesune:
  Here's the scope shots.


Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2009, 03:11:14 AM »
Soodesune:
 Here's the scope shots.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 05:22:10 AM by Garfield »

Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2009, 07:23:44 AM »
here is a thought that i haven't seen considdered... Using the concept of a Tesla Coil to step up the voltage... having a large outter coil and then the middle being a chain of bifilar coils running up the center... i haven't seen it tested or even ran in reverse (bifilar on teh outside) be interesting to say the least. Find out which end of your recieving coil is + and - and attach them straight to your electrodes should be high voltage at the least. Then all you have to do is pulse the delivery coil with different frequencys and such should almost harmonize itself... in theory...

Your post prompted me to look up and study an article on building a tesla coil.  It uses the same theory of Meyers by using a series resonant circuit. As you may know, the voltage build-up in this circuit is limited mainly by the resistance of the coil. This construction article uses 8 turns of 3/16 in. copper tubing for the primary (very low resistance) . It's wound in pan-cake fashion so as not to arc between the windings. The thing will put out 3 foot sparks so potential must be in excess of several hundred Kv. Way too much for a fuel cell. The resonant frequency is up in the RF range.
   Also, that binary coil could never work as anything over 5000 volts or so would cause arcing and a breakdown between the 2 windings.What you would need is 2 seperate coils, one in each leg of the cell. The combined inductance of the 2 coils together with the capacitance of the wfc would determine the resonant frequency.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2009, 05:06:18 AM »
Hi I am new and would just like to add a little to this discussion.  I also have been studying the Stanley Meyers patent and IMO there is a major point of his that is little talked about here, at least that I can find.  And that is, he says very clearly that his process of splitting water is voltage dependant and not current dependant.  In other words he is using High Voltage instead of high current to split the water.  The purpose of the VIC circuit was to minimize current and increase the voltage.  When we say increase the voltage he was talking > 40,000 Volts across the water fuel cell.  To accomplish this his transformer stepped up the input voltage driving a bifilar wound HV coil ( thousands of turns ).  This bifilar coil is built as a flyback transformer and operates with the pulses applied to the primary winding, because of how this all works it can all be put on one core, as long as all coils proper polarity is observed.  When pulsed the output of the flyback + and - go in opposite directions, doubling the flyback voltage. That is, if each coil has a 20,000 volt flyback voltage then total voltage is 40,000 volts across the cell.  That is all that the VIC is, what it does and how it works.  Stanley was using very high voltage (40,000 volts) and low current (5ma). Now I have found that water fuel cells don't work well on AC voltage they work much better on DC therefore the diode in Stanley's patent. So what about the resonance he mentions, it can only be running the VIC transformer at its resonance to keep input current to a minimum.  All of what he was doing was minimizing total current and total power usage. I would also like to mention that the patent drawing of the VIC shows an incorrect connection of the bifilar coil it will not work connected as shown.

I hope this helps and maybe clarifies some things for all.
Room3327
[/quote  ]

Yes, I must agree with you 95%.  Some people are replicating Lawton's circuit which is straight electrolysis passing a current through the water. This is quite apparent when you look at the circuit. As the diode is reverse-biased, the mosfet can only get it's operating voltage through the resistance of the water unless a transformer is added.
   The condioning of the plates is what makes it very efficient. If I fail to get Meyer's design working then II might just take a crack at Lawtons.
    Using the core of a flyback xformer is a good idea, but I would'nt bifilar wind the 2 chokes on it because of the high voltage between the 2 windings. You get the same" + and -  in opposite directions" by using seperate coils on the core and connecting in proper phase.
    After reviewing some of my electronic theory I discovered something that I never knew before. If you were to place just one hv winding on the core and connect a capacitor (wfc) across it, this would be a series resonant circuit.  Of course many would say that it's a parallel circuit. The explanation given is: If the source voltage is inductively induced then everthing is in series. .The hv winding itself then becomes the resonant choke.  This still gives you the * and - in the same instance of time as each end of the coil is 180 deg. out of phase with the other.
   Still not sure whether Meyers was using resonance or just pulsed dc.  Haven't had much luck using both at same time.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hard Look at Stan Meyer Patent
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2009, 05:06:18 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: