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: 493109
  • *Total Topics: 14500
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 96
  • *Total: 101

Facebook

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer Explained  (Read 159351 times)

Offline L505

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #135 on: May 22, 2009, 04:17:03 PM »
H20power, you have not scientifically or mathematically proven where the electrons go, and where they sit waiting.  Stan Meyer says in one of his patents or articles that the electrons are destroyed/consumed and converted into heat/light. Earlier he said with his obsolete WFC system that electrons were NOT consumed at all! Very contradictory - but then again the water injector is a different invention than the original WFC. If this is the case with the water injector, that electrons are somehow destroyed and converted to energy - then he would have killed our planet pretty quickly and turned all of our drinking water into heat and light.  Do you think his aims were good?

Is this how the Sun works? Ball of water that destroys matter?

Electrons are not DESTROYED off our planet as far as I know.  They just move and move other things around them. Correct me if I am wrong. I.e. when you have a battery in operation the electrons just go from one chemical to the other chemical - the electrons are not actually eaten by magical gothic zombies.

If Stan's wish is to destroy electrons (reducing mass of planet) then we are going to kill ourselves with this device pretty quickly, are we not? Or do electrons get created from God or from the Vacuum - and if so then please demonstrate it and say so. All we want are answers. Stop brushing it under the carpet.

H20Power you better stop bragging about your engineering skills because if you engineer a device that kills me, make no mistake I will come after you with a baseball bat and harm you! That is not good engineering skill of you (humor noted, I could not do so if I had already been killed first  :-*)

Where did these electrons disappear to in this hydrogen fracturing process? Then where did they magically come back from? Or did they? Did God generate them again and have them destroyed for us first?

These are the questions you should be answering and asking, H20Power.

If you want to ask the right questions, then open your damn ears and listen. Stop rambling on about how everyone should just go look up Corona discharge.. that is just an easy way out for you. You use this as your escape. You like to use that label like it is the Bible that we should all read. If you were truly an engineer and scientist though you would not even have to refer people to the Corona discharge - you could sum it up and explain what happens within a few sentences.

For example let us say that what happens in Stan's system is that the electrons get dislodged and stuck in the air somehow. Then when the flame finishes burning the water ions grab back those electrons and we have water again. YOU EXPLAIN IT IN SIMPLE TERMS LIKE THIS and stop farting around.

If you do not explain your system then you will potentially kill millions of people. Do you realize what harm you will do to this planet if your device is destroying electrons and matter? Do you realize what weapons of mass destruction you are launching?

When the mixture has completed burning and the piston is moving, the electrons jump back in to the ions to create non ionic water molecule?

YOU, yes, YOU, h20power.. why don't YOU start asking the right questions.

If you really knew what you were doing you could sum up the "discharge" and ionization effect in a few sentences and just SAY SO for crying out loud that the electrons dislodge into the air and get stuck there like glue for a second, then they come back into the water ions. But here is the QUESTION TO ASK - where did the energy come from to release that sticky glue bond that those electrons were temporarily using to hold on to the air, if indeed that this is where they go?

Were the electrons just floating without glue? If they were floating without glue then they would not be floating at all - they would already have formed the water, preventing the flame in the first place! Ask the right questions. Answer them. 

People talk about how Stan's device is some Divine system that pulls and pushes evenly like the yin and yang. Sorry, does not scientifically explain it. Guess what - two magnets stuck together also do this. THEY DO NOT PRODUCE USEFUL ENERGY. THEY CANCEL OUT.  So start explaining Stan's device properly, scientifically - because you are NOT doing so - H20power, nor is Outlawsc or even the other more religious buddhist quacktards on this site.

And for Ms. Farrah Day, gentle lady - if ionization and temporary electron dislodging really does causes the energy to be released in Meyer's system - then H20Power is mostly right in saying that we need not to worry much about the rest of the system like the old obsolete WFC. We could produce small crappy amounts of hydrogen using even old obsolete electrolysis and still release massive amounts of energy from it if this ionization "discharge" really works. However, if this ionization discharge does not work and Stan just theorized it worked... well.... then the gas processor is mostly a useless dream.   This, I am still sitting on the fence about - because it is possible Stan was delusional. I am not saying he was, but there is an equal possibility.

The right question to ask (ARE YOU LISTENING H20POWER?) are: is there energy required to release electrons from a temporary ionization glue in the air? Are the electrons disappearing and where to?  If they disappear is it only temporary, and are they then plucked again and returned? Where from? Why? These are the questions to ask. Or are the electrons are destroyed and gone?  If it is a case of the electrons being dislodged and "hanging out somewhere else" for a while, like at the shopping mall or corner store, or where-ever. I have some doubts because it takes energy to release that glue that they were sticking to, in the air, temporarily, to hide from the water molecule for a while. How are you going to drive these electrons home from the shopping mall without paying for the fuel to do so? Or were the electrons just magically pulled back with the force without amps and current?

Do also think about magnets and how they stick together due to equal forces. No movement there.. 0. Cancel out.  If there truly was a way to harness energy like from just fields and potential - then what about permanent magnets?

If it is a case of electrons being destroyed then I am scared.

UNTIL YOU COME UP WITH SOUND SCIENTIFIC THEORY, WE WILL NOT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.

One more thing h20power: stop repeating the same useless beaten to death horse: Learn to ask the right questions.  Why I want you to stop beating this dead cliche? Because you have not asked the right questions and neither did Stan! You h20power and Stan did not THINK about the consequences of destroyed electrons, or if not destroyed then WHAT? Where are they?  That is the right question to ask. When you start asking them, then please continue to preach like a Priest with your dead horse. I have asked them. Not you! 

Farrah Day asked some good questions that you just ignored and told everyone to look up Corona discharge. Again I repeat you could explain your device without even recommending people look up Corona discharge.. tell them about the temporary ionization glue, if that is how it works - and do explain how this bond in the air ionization is broken without it taking massive amounts of energy. Do not just brush it under the carpet and tell people to go read up on Corona discharge. Just because you ask scientists to explain how lightening works and they do not have all the answers, does not mean that because of this your device will work! That is what you seem to think.  Here is a thought for you: the energy in lightening may come from the Sun, because water had risen to a higher level and now has more charge up high in the sky. Then the energy could be explained as coming from the sun in lightening. I am not saying this is the case - but if it is, then it would mean that referring people to how lightening works would actually DISPROVE stan's device, not prove it. Unless stan's device got energy from the sun somehow. 

And there are theories out there that energy in lightening does come from the sun. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. One theory, AFAIR, is that the water from oceans, etc. get heated by the sun and this water turns into gas in the sky. Those are called clouds. However, when the gas turns back to liquid what happens? ask the right questions. This has tremendous potential energy due to water being a lower energy level than gas. Why? Gas is taking up lots of space and has energy. Similar to how it takes lots of energy to melt ice since ice is lower energy that water.  So since  gaseous clouds all of a sudden start turning RAPIDLY into liquid, they cause lightening discharge. That is just one theory - do look it up - because I may have not explained it as well as they did with the static explanations.  This could also explain why people supposedly "burn water" with those plasma spark plugs on the free energy quacktard forums. If we use some energy to mistify the water into a little spray of cloud, is this energy that we put into the system then not available to us to discharge? But they cancel out. The mechanical energy we used to separate the water into a spray is then converted into spark. I.e. the mechanical energy it took to mistify the water is gained back in the little spark you get, and you have zero net.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 05:11:21 PM by L505 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #135 on: May 22, 2009, 04:17:03 PM »

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #136 on: May 25, 2009, 06:51:57 PM »
Interesting arguments L505. I'm confused about how you interpret ionization and such. Do you understand it and you say Meyers didn't? I'm not sure what "sitting on the fence with this one" means. Please let me offer an explanation... The following was copied from http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/06/ARG/steinman.htm

Air Ions Defined

The word ion, derived from a Greek verb suggesting motion, has the sense of “a traveler.” The term was first used to describe the effects observed when electrical currents were passed through various solutions; molecules in the solutions would dissociate and migrate—that is, travel—to electrodes of opposite polarity. A theory advanced by the Swedish researcher S. A. Arrhenius that the migrating ions were electrically charged atoms was substantiated by the later discovery of the electron and its nature.

Ions are defined as atoms or molecules that have lost or gained electrons. (Electrons are the only easily available charge carriers.) When an atom or molecule has an equal number of electrons and protons it is electrically balanced, or neutral. If an electron is lost, the atom or molecule becomes positively charged and is a positive ion. Gaining an electron makes it a negative ion.

What is called an air ion, or a charged air molecule, is really no such thing. Air is a mixture of gases, including nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other trace gases, any one or more of which may be ionized. Sometimes a diatomic gas molecule, such as nitrogen or oxygen, will gain or lose the electron. Sometimes it will be a more complex gas such as carbon dioxide. In any case, when molecules of one or more of the gases in air gain or lose electrons, the result is conventionally called air ions. Air ions differ from ions in solution in that energy is needed for their formation.

In normal, unfiltered air, air ions are molecular clusters consisting of about 10 neutral gas molecules around a charged oxygen, water, or nitrogen molecule. These are called small air ions. Small air ions are relatively mobile and soon encounter ions of the opposite polarity or a grounded surface, at which point they lose their charge and become neutral molecules again. Small air ions have a life span of a few seconds to a few minutes in clean air.

Under the right conditions, these ions attach to particles or other large molecular clusters in the air, resulting in large air ions. The relative proportion of small and large air ions present generally depends on the cleanliness of the air. Large quantities of particulate matter or aerosols in the air lead to a depletion of small air ions.

However, any discussion of neutralizing static charge on insulators in a static-control program, as here, will deal primarily with the production and effects of small air ions.


Where do the electrons go? In Stan's case, ground. The EEC is clearly used after the electrolytic cell to ionize the liberated gasses. Stan calls it an "Electron Extraction Circuit", Tesla called it an "Ozone Generator", "Air Ionizer", etc... The technology is older than the hills, so, it should not be too hard of a concept even when the names have changed which all inventors love to do when they invent(rediscover). like the "Transmogrifier" or a "Flux Capacitor".

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #137 on: August 23, 2009, 10:41:15 PM »
Hello guys i would like to invite you to my thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html

Here i released the basic information about the way meyer did to achieve 1000x efficiency electrolysis.

I ask for donations so if you can please donate it will help a lot. I decided to come here and advert you about it. 

Answer he didn't used high voltage between the plates. He talked about this to confuse people.
40kv at 1ma = to 40 watts right ?
How about 4000 amps at 0,01volts
would not it be = to 40w?

The key is how to pass this huge current thru water at this very low voltage. You would need very high surface on the plates and...

Info about this here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Please donate

Offline L505

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #138 on: August 23, 2009, 11:14:56 PM »
Hello guys i would like to invite you to my thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html

Here i released the basic information about the way meyer did to achieve 1000x efficiency electrolysis.

I ask for donations so if you can please donate it will help a lot. I decided to come here and advert you about it. 

Answer he didn't used high voltage between the plates. He talked about this to confuse people.
40kv at 1ma = to 40 watts right ?
How about 4000 amps at 0,01volts
would not it be = to 40w?

The key is how to pass this huge current thru water at this very low voltage. You would need very high surface on the plates and...

Info about this here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Please donate

Sebosfato, no offence - but piss-off! No one sends donations when you just yap and talk. Put the evidence where your mouth is. You don't need donations to build it if you already know it works - because if you already know it works, then show it to everyone. Put up or shut up.



Offline L505

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #139 on: August 23, 2009, 11:35:32 PM »
Interesting arguments L505. I'm confused about how you interpret ionization and such. Do you understand it and you say Meyers didn't?


Meyer's didn't do a very good job of stating that ionization is cheap and easy to do. Is this true?

If so, this is the entire key to the whole invention and it means one could build a far simpler electricity creation device. All one has to do is ionize air, and combine it with some other stuff.... a plastic comb for example, and you have free static electricity from a comb.

It should be emphasized everywhere that ionization of air is the huge key to the invention. I'm still not sure it is, because rubbing a comb to knock off electrons takes energy. Someone needs to explain how this Meyer system somehow does it without the comb rubbing.

Someone needs to prove that ionization and knocking electrons off air is cheap and free, or somehow a net energy gain. Doesn't make sense to me since in order to increase the energy level (knock an electron off), one has to increase the energy to get up to that energy level. I keep the open mind though, and not saying it isn't possible.. I just wonder how.

If the energy comes from the motion of the molecules moving, then the water must cool down or slow down its molecules and that's where the energy comes from? If possible, it would break the laws of physics since heat can't be extracted from substances that are at their surrounding atmosphere temperature (not saying the laws can't be broken though, again I'm open minded).


Where do the electrons go? In Stan's case, ground. The EEC is clearly used after the electrolytic cell to ionize the liberated gasses. Stan calls it an "Electron Extraction Circuit", Tesla called it an "Ozone Generator", "Air Ionizer", etc...

He didn't make this clear, that the air ionizer was somehow free? As far as I know Tesla used energy to ionize air, it wasn't free.

As for the Ground...
Okay, that's interesting. A lot of people act as if they have found the solution to Meyer's system but no one has mentioned these points about the electrons disappearing to GROUND.

I once had the idea that maybe the electrons were going to ground, like how when you rub a comb and touch a door knob the electrons short out. So which ground ? earth ground, or the engine metal ground?

If it is the engine metal, then why don't the electrons just rejoin again and stop the fuel from being created since everything is touching the metal in the engine.. Or do the electrons go into the battery of the car or through the alternator? Flow of electricity has to be explained here. 

When the gases enter the combustion chamber, the cylinders are metallic... so would the ionic gases then just rejoin to the engine ground metal inside the chamber? Unless somehow the spark beats the gases. Again, more flow and complete explanations please. Until we understand all of this.. we aren't going to know how it all works!

Stan didn't mention that ground was extremely important in the circuit and that this is where electrons go? Normal circuits don't work this way do they, where electrons just disappear to ground? Usually the electrons run back to your battery terminal or similar. With generators the electrons race back to the magnet, AFAIK.

Okay so why do the electrons want to go to ground... the coils trap them, the light bulb draws the electrons in, and they go to ground after that why? Do any circuits work this way where ground just consumes electrons (well, stores them). Is this possible? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just questioning this to understand how and why it could work.

When you rub a comb the reason they go to ground is because you have added energy to the comb by moving it back and forth. How does this Meyer system do it without rubbing the comb? Also clouds rub by wind and sun energy and that's why we see bolts of lightning, because of the sun charging up the clouds. Where does Stan get this energy without using movement from wind currents or the sun?

When you strip electrons off the air, it should be the same as knocking energy levels up of any other substance, as far as I know. just like rubbing a comb costs energy. Electrons are jiggled out off the comb and that took energy to get them jiggled. So Stan does this by what magic? Just voltage alone...  can I charge up a comb with just voltage alone? If so there might be easier ways to generate energy - not saying that we should work on other stuff and forget the water cell, just questioning this whole thing because really working with a comb could be easier than a complex engine compartment, to at least prove the theory in a lab easily.

Since after all a molecule is a molecule, and an energy level is an energy level, I still don't see how magically ionization is free and knocking off electrons to ground doesn't take any energy to ionize air?

The only sensible way I see in gaining energy from this, is to reduce the mass of the water, which could be dangerous, or to cool off the water and have it ice cold out the tail pipe (which goes against the laws of physics, but I'm not saying it isn't possible), or to change the structure of water to have more bonds since more bonds mean more energy is released.

The technology is older than the hills, so, it should not be too hard of a concept even when the names have changed which all inventors love to do when they invent(rediscover). like the "Transmogrifier" or a "Flux Capacitor".

Indeed ionization is nothing new. But, is ionization free energy or somehow cheaper than rubbing a comb? Lightning works by the clouds moving with wind currents and gravity pulling icicles down, so that's where the energy comes from there - the sun.  Tesla developed the ionization system  which drew power in order to purify water, air, and emulate lightning.  It's not as if it was free energy, it was just an invention for ionization?  Does someone have some evidence that somehow ionization can be done nearly free without expending energy, and why is that so if rubbing a comb takes energy to knock electrons lose?

If someone could please explain to everyone how knocking off electrons from air molecules is somehow extremely efficient!

The way I see it so far is everyone forgets to do some calculations on the ionization side. We just assume that ionizing air must be cheap, and no proof of that? Really, where are the calculations to show this and prove it? I'm not saying it isn't true, but I wonder why lots of people think they have solved Meyer, without them actually showing the complete science and math?

It was never emphasized by Meyer if it is true, and I wonder if he skipped these points because he was busy explaining other stuff, or whether he just didn't have the heart to offer this to people, or what. 

Also, if the electrons disappear into earth ground, it means the water cannot be formed in the tail pipe - the electrons have escaped and are no longer in the water, they are in the ground? Or are they in the engine metal, and not at the tires to earth ground? When the gas explodes it grabs electrons from the engine again? This seems still like some kind of perpetual motion and there are missing equations for the energy that was gained. Not saying it isn't how the system works, I'm just demanding the science here like any intelligent scientific person would.

And I ask all these questions because, well, one has to "ask the right questions". They aren't meant to be purely negative doubts, or flames; they are meant to help solve this system and make people understand it entirely, scientifically!
« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 11:57:32 PM by L505 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #139 on: August 23, 2009, 11:35:32 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline L505

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #140 on: August 23, 2009, 11:48:31 PM »
Also it would be interesting to see - are there any circuits out there that have electrons go to ground and disappear there (well I mean stored there) for other reasons? I.e. doesn't have to be free energy related, just would be interesting to see some circuits that use this technique for any reasons whatsoever. It seems, if it is all about electrons disappearing into ground (stan calls it consumption but really it is just moving them elsewhere, not consumption), that this circuit is unique in that it is a mixture of regular electricity and static electricity. Not many circuits I know of use static electricity? But I haven't studied many circuits so would like to know if others make use of this technique for other inventions or electronics?

Also, although static electricity is called static, it doesn't mean it is free.. again rubbing the comb is not free energy just because it is static electricity when you touch your finger to the door knob. You added the rubbing energy to make the static electricity possible. So although Stan could be using static electricity, still more explanations need to be added - static does not equal free (unless, someone has an explanation!)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 12:11:10 AM by L505 »

Offline sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #141 on: August 24, 2009, 12:36:06 AM »
Hi

I know every one come and say oh i got the solution bla bla bla ...

But believe me to ionize the air economically you need to get the electrons to collide against each others but this can be done only at very high power density or very high voltage. http://www.sayedsaad.com/High_voltge/insulating_gases/insulating_gases_3.htm

You can use laser energy to overcome the surface potential barrier allowing electron emission, you need a good electron donor material for the cathode and a good electron acceptor for the anode, stanley showed this calculations look at this link.

Stanley meyer talked about using high voltage with very few milliamps and actually this was the output power of the vic or as you can now call it as what it is the input transformer that inputs energy into the resonant tank. A resonant tank at resonance accumulate power a lot of it. In the form of recirculating the current from the capacitor to the inductor. when the tank is full it develop a very high impedance thats why stan say 40kv 1ma because he got 40000000ohms of impedance on his configuration. The current could be anywhere close to 40 amps. When he said allow voltage to take over in a dead short condition he was talking about how to push all this current thru the water using while having very low voltage between the plates.


Actually he was using 40w to create about 100kwatts of reactive power to split the water molecule. When he got the collisions and the electron is ejected from the water it than recirculate and destroy other molecules even further. The same applies on the gas processor ionizing the air economically.

If you want you can read the all thread and check if my information is right i assure you lc circuits works like this because i'm working on this from 3 years now. i would not say things like this on the internet if it was not true. i  got only 150 euros of donations started this week so as i'm releasing such an information people could consider donate. I spent all my money on it more than 13000 euros in the recent years only on this equipments ...

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #141 on: August 24, 2009, 12:36:06 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline dankie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #142 on: August 24, 2009, 03:12:51 AM »
Sebosfato , I think I am gonna go advertise my product over @ that retarded cia gatekeeper site energeticforum.com and give you some competion

The last time I tried to advertise there my post was immediatly locked and I was banned again by that hating  amateur Aaron CIA Murakami .

But I think I'm gonna try again , I know that fool will just love to hate my new toy .




Offline sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #143 on: August 24, 2009, 06:38:20 AM »
meyer knew that if he said like 5000amps at 0,01 volts is = to 50W  everyone would just get it to work 100x more efficient than Faraday. So he said just the contrary to protect his tech nology. Actually As if you read my thread you will understand that he says allow voltage to take over and do work on a dead short condition. And now i ask you what work can high voltage perform under a dead short condition  It can make a very high current pass thru the water and for being at resonance you have no voltage in phase with the current so you are using high voltage to bombard the water with the high recirculating current you create on the resonant tank using few watts as he actually said from his input transformer 40W 40kv 0,001 amp...

Dankie  I don't know what your product is but i assure you that if your product is still the ss wire or the vic transformer thats a nice one but you need to read what i'm talking about to get there because the history about resonance using only voltage with no current is bullshit.

So read my thread look very well every single word and if you can send me a donation or if you want send me one of your toys to test in combination with my toys and i'm going to send you pictures of my simulations that shows clearly that with a normal transformer or even without a transformer you can create very high recirculating power much higher than incoming input power meaning that what i'm talking about and real world books that talk about practical oscillators are right, the tank circuit accumulates power.

Stanley yes used ozone too as is easy to use the same circuit to create it and use it to split water molecule like also bruce perrealt states but first of every thing he could make electrolysis even 1000x more efficient already. He just wanted to make a new way to make it compact using only the injectors. Anyway you can't get to this with no background so people should start with what stanley started. Split the water economically. 

So read my thread and if you want my data make a donation
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html 

Please help me

Offline angryScientist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #144 on: August 24, 2009, 08:51:58 AM »
@sebosfato

If you are looking for a hi voltage capacitor I ran across some info in the tesla patents that could be applicable.

Quote
In the course of my own investigations, more especially those of the electric properties of ice, I have discovered some novel and important facts, of which the more prominent are the following : Firsts that under certain conditions, when the leakage of the electric charge, ordinarily taking place, is rigorously prevented, ice proves itself to be a much better insulator than has heretofore appeared; second, that its insulating properties may be still further improved by the addition of other bodies to the water; third, that the di-electric strength of ice or other frozen aqueous substance increases with the reduction of temperature and corresponding increase of hardness; and fourth, that these bodies afford a still more effective insulation for conductors carrying intermittent or alternating currents, particularly of high rates ; surprisingly thin layers of ice being capable of withstanding electromotive forces of many hundreds, and even thousands of volts.
Improvements relating to the Insulation of Electric Conductors.
http://keelynet.com/tesla/B0014550.pdf

Also, I thought capacitors automatically had a high Q since there is no significant resistance. Why do you need a high Q capacitor? What am I missing? How would a high Q capacitor differ from a regular capacitor?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #144 on: August 24, 2009, 08:51:58 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #145 on: August 24, 2009, 09:27:59 AM »
Hello angryscientist If you are up to create a very high current recirculating in a tank circuit you need a capacitor that is almost loss less or closer to it i mean low dielectric losses and low series resistance losses.

this way you can recirculate many kw of power using very low power input.

For an example If you have a High Q factor coil lets say a 100uh coil with a dc resistance of 0,005 ohms you need a high Q capacitor too to create a high Q resonant tank in order to have low losses in comparison with the recirculating power. The multiplication factor will be the same as the Q factor of the circuit so if you put 50w in a 2000 Q factor circuit you get 100kwatts of power recirculating and irradiating the water.

Depending on the values of capacitor and inductor the proportion of current and inductance change.
The bigger the inductance is the lower the frequency is and consequently the lower the current. As current is a depend on the capacitor value and frequency.

Read my thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html

Offline sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #146 on: August 24, 2009, 10:54:51 AM »
Yes you got it i use water in between the capacitor and inductor being in parallel so it counts as a series resistance with sodium hydroxide added to it as to get very very low resistance if you have this you get a high Q tank than with a certain current circulation you can make it very efficiently. I remind you that the inductor is wounded around the cell so you have also electromagnetic radiation and induced eddy currents in water and creating a very high pulses of magnetic energy.
With a step down transformer you could not pass this big current inside the water without having very large electrodes. With a resonant tank circuit you can.

Thats why i say is not a joke.   


Offline sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #147 on: August 24, 2009, 11:54:11 AM »
The amount of power wont change only the voltage and current. is like a resonant step down transformation as to have very high current and low voltage as i said if you put 50w 50Kv 1ma You have in your cell 50kv across the inductor and capacitor but thru the water you have for say 1000 amps if your cell resistance is = to 1mohm you get 1 volt across the cell but ate this power density it doesn't mather much because electrons will collide nocking more molecules and releasing them ionized. Actually stanley said he could use any water and the only way to have a parameter to go with any water is just to add electrolyte wont?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html

Please who can donate

Offline sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #148 on: August 24, 2009, 12:57:41 PM »
Yes there is a way to steal the electron from the oxygen atoms this reaction takes place when you start to have ionization by collision inside your cells works like a chain reaction 1 electron is liberated is recirculated by the tank and again shot in the water again to knock out more electrons. Stanley meyer called this the electron extraction circuit. actually you could ionize air and sequentially using this free electrons to pass thru the water. Having a extra electron source. Is complex and at the same time simple is my theory about Stanley meyer I'm convinced how about you? 
Similarities what i say what meyer say
Output of the transformer 40kv 1ma 
It can work with any water
It needs a tank circuit (meyer call it resonant cavity to confuse you)
Laser energy can overcome the surface potential barrier of metals aiding collision. (meyer said it was for ionize the gases) 
 Meyer had to protect his technology and did it by only hiding on this sentence Allow voltage to take over and perform work on a dead short condition. The work it perform is to allow the flow of this high current and catch the electrons to recirculate by the inertia of the flow of energy in the tank. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline L505

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #149 on: August 25, 2009, 01:32:41 AM »
I realize that I'm off the mark here, but "Electrons" cannot "Go" to ground.  Please remember, unless you are working with high Negative Voltages, the electrons COME from ground.

That's why I think it is important to question the GROUND issue.

When you rub your feet on the carpet, you gain electrons as a human. When you go to touch the door knob you get a spark as the electrons go from you to the doorknob.

Why do the electrons go from you to the door knob - is the door knob a ground and if so why would the electrons go there. If it is not a ground, then what is it, just isolated metal?

When you take off a wool hat, apparently the electrons go from your hair to the hat, and you the human take on a positive charge.  So if you touched a doorknob after taking off a toque, I guess it would be quite different than rubbing your socks on carpet.

I can assume that Stan could have been using all negative values, at which point the ground could suck up the higher charged particles.  (No need to discuss the theory with you guys, as you understand it better than I.)

People do NOT understand theory, and that is the problem. If anyone actually understood the Meyer theory, it could be published and accepted by science, and the world would be a lot better place without any oil reliance for fuel (just for lubrication). THe problem actually is there is no theory! There is just speculation, and hand waving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving

People want to handwave because they want to bypass the scientific questions and just get on to building the device, without understanding it and without showing the full math.

People who come on the forum asking for explanations are usually swiped aside as people that are "against the energy revolution" or "with the CIA" or something like that. This attitude needs to change. I for example would build a device if I understood how it worked, but until everything is understood it's almost a waste of time experimenting with a blindfold on (sometimes it is not a waste of time because you learn stuff experimenting, but often it is a waste of time).

Worse, some claim to understand it and claim to have all the math and science done - when in fact it is incomplete. If it were complete, then a student could easily understand the theory within a couple of hours of studying a terse but complete explanation of what goes on. This is not the case.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 01:55:50 AM by L505 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #149 on: August 25, 2009, 01:32:41 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: