Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hydrogen energy => Electrolysis of H20 and Hydrogen on demand generation => Topic started by: h20power on March 15, 2009, 11:34:59 PM

Title: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 15, 2009, 11:34:59 PM
Now I am going to set this up as an engineering project as a result I will not tell you how to build, construct, and/or design your projects if you so choose to make them. The idea is simple, to get as many different models as possible that all work. You will be shown where the power truly comes from and how everything works for the water fuel injector system, not the WFC in use with the gasous type injectors. Read them as a set of rules to follow, anyway you see fit on how to apply what you have read is up to you.

Again I stress that this is to be a engineering type project, the full build of the design shall come from the individual and/or teams that want to work together on it. And most important of all is to have fun ;D.

Enjoy: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-7.html#post47874

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained.html
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 16, 2009, 12:34:26 AM
H20power
Thank you so much for starting this thread, your insight is greatly appreciated

Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dave45 on March 16, 2009, 02:12:20 AM
Glad to see you here, Iv been reading your stuff for quite awhile.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 16, 2009, 09:42:08 AM
Thanks, just doing what I can to spead the technology to as many as possible. I might have been away for a bit but I was very busy as everyone can see. Now everyone can see the math of Stanley Meyer's work for the first time, and it shows he did not break the laws of thermo dynamics in anyway, he just used the power of a lightining storm for the most part, and that needs no help from man.

I hope to see many working models from the information I provided and that the Energy Revolution begins to break the chains of energy enslavement that has gripped us all for far too long.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 16, 2009, 01:47:18 PM
h2opower,

from what i have read of your explanations of stan meyer suppied by  ramset on another thred, tell me if im correct, you are sayng that when you are capable of putting oxy in very high energy state that is all you need to seperate hydrogen and oxy(water) ? there is no need for water splitter injector? just the need for thermal heat spark?


outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: alan on March 16, 2009, 02:36:27 PM
does the energy balance (including ionization energy) show an excess of released energy?

or can the ionization of oxygen be 'free' using the VIC method?
is the hydrogen atom really being consumed and gone, like meyer said?

thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 17, 2009, 12:16:31 AM
h2opower,

from what i have read of your explanations of stan meyer suppied by  ramset on another thred, tell me if im correct, you are sayng that when you are capable of putting oxy in very high energy state that is all you need to seperate hydrogen and oxy(water) ? there is no need for water splitter injector? just the need for thermal heat spark?


outlawstc

In the patent it is stated that spark or heat ingition source will work, but the way the injectors work is by creating micro-mini capacitors that short out as the droplets evaporate, just as long as the relaxation time is greater that the evaporation time. From what I understand both are taking place at the same time some of the water injected will be turned into hydrogen and oxygen and the rest left over will ignite when that hydrogen mixture is set off by either spark or heat ignition in the presence of the unstable oxygen atoms. Hydrogen will flash at 500 degrees C and that will happen in a diesel engine. The unstable oxygen atoms will stabilize by taking the hydrogen atoms from the water molecule of any that did not break up into hydrogen and oxygen for it has well enough energy to do so.

As far as Ramset, I am have not seen his work, and I do belive I am the first to every talk about the Gas Processor and what it is doing. I know I am the first to ever show the math in comparision to the energy content of gasoline, besides Stanley Meyer(though he only stated the end results). I could care less of someones elses work for I have not read it, all I care about is starting the energy revolution, and I gave the technology away for everyone to have. That is the only way any of us will ever see this type of technology, for someone to lay down the bag of greed bricks and do the right thing.

Could you post a copy of his work, with the dates it was posted so I can read it? Thanks

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 17, 2009, 12:28:14 AM
does the energy balance (including ionization energy) show an excess of released energy?

or can the ionization of oxygen be 'free' using the VIC method?
is the hydrogen atom really being consumed and gone, like meyer said?

thanks


The hydrogen atom shouldn't be consumed for all that is being created is water vapor, it the lectures Stanley Meyer says the oxygen atom over compensates giving off the high energy yeilds beyond the normal hydrogen/oxygen reaction. The all copper VIC should be used on the Gas Processor, the SS wire VIC is for use of any gap 0.06-0.01 inches and that is only found in the Water Fuel Capacitor. Note there are two types of VIC transformers not just one. I posted a video of the Gas Processor in action on the other site from MIT.

Everyone should take the time to read the whole thread as there is a lot of information given in there, plus note I was learning more as I went along. Trust me I really wont re-write everything that I went over in the thread.

Best wishes,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dave45 on March 17, 2009, 01:32:59 AM
I believe the gas processor is vital to the injector, as per h20's explanation but I would also like to see it applied to the wfc as in a heater or torch.
Maybe separate the h an o at the cell run the O through the GP and recombine at the orifice, this would also make it less likely to flashback.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 17, 2009, 01:52:38 AM
I believe the gas processor is vital to the injector, as per h20's explanation but I would also like to see it applied to the wfc as in a heater or torch.
Maybe separate the h an o at the cell run the O through the GP and recombine at the orifice, this would also make it less likely to flashback.

Say your talking about the gas gun, and yes that would be very interesting to see for as you raise the voltage to the Gas Processor the flame should increase in thermo energy released. So everyone build the Gas Processor best you can, do your homework to make sure you understand what is it's purpose. For remember there are many ways to do this, all that work win the energy independence fight.

Time for real change,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dave45 on March 17, 2009, 04:20:48 AM
@h20
This would also be a way to confirm your theory, build the gas gun lets blast our way into the future.
This should run a carbureted engine also. (generator)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: alan on March 17, 2009, 01:13:40 PM
The hydrogen atom shouldn't be consumed for all that is being created is water vapor, it the lectures Stanley Meyer says the oxygen atom over compensates giving off the high energy yeilds beyond the normal hydrogen/oxygen reaction. The all copper VIC should be used on the Gas Processor, the SS wire VIC is for use of any gap 0.06-0.01 inches and that is only found in the Water Fuel Capacitor. Note there are two types of VIC transformers not just one. I posted a video of the Gas Processor in action on the other site from MIT.

Everyone should take the time to read the whole thread as there is a lot of information given in there, plus note I was learning more as I went along. Trust me I really wont re-write everything that I went over in the thread.

Best wishes,
h2opower.
damn, you're actually working on it, looking very good.
In the New Zealand house meeting video, meyer actually did say the atoms are consumed, if I remember correctly.

Quote
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 7469.2 kJ/mol (@ 4th + ionization level) are formed yeilding 8341.2 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction now is 8341.2-1836 = +6505.2 kJ/mol
Ok, let's assume enough energy is being released in the combustion engine, no doubt about that, it's enough to run a car; the net sum  energy released in the combustion process, isn't that quantity equal (or even less) to the energy it did cost to separate the water (1836kJ/mol ) AND ionize the oxygen to 4th level (more than 7469.2 kJ/mol)?

you said yourself:
Quote
The ioniztion energies is a two way street, what goes up must come down, so it takes the same amount of energy to raise the energy levels as you get from the enregy levels on their way down.

so my point is, I can see that it is possible to run a car on water, but I cannot see OU? Is the air processor a free ionizer and OU in itself?

(save your time by answering this if you already did, don't want to annoy by asking to repeat stuff, but i couldn't find it myself)

this is the link to the MIT video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQvXrxrqshk
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 17, 2009, 04:43:06 PM
the water injector is needed for a couple stages to happen the first stage is the polarization process. the tickling of the state space is what dislodges the waters (oxy) electrons to turn off the covalent bond.. the electrons that were tickled off the water managed to bond to the highly positve ionized gases. so now all the oxygens are short of i would say at least 4-6 electrons. oxygen then steals hydrogens single electrons giving you positive charged measly little proton as stan would put it. now hydrogen and oxygen  are (both missing electrons to be stable) .. the dynamic electrical stress and the compressional dynamic wave guide creates thermal spark ignition at the exiting point of the injector/splitter.. to say it can be done with just spark doesnt make sense to me.. i feel in order to seperate the water it has to be between to high potentials for the polarization process. opposite electrical stress..  the higher energy state of oxygen is just oxygen that has been stripped of some or all electrons. i suggest during experimenting that from the transfer point of the highly energized oxy that it be in well insulated piping.. i have a feeling that it will shock you if touched and be less effecient.. since most likely it will be sponging in electrons from ground loosing its high state before use.

outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 17, 2009, 06:33:16 PM
damn, you're actually working on it, looking very good.
In the New Zealand house meeting video, meyer actually did say the atoms are consumed, if I remember correctly.
Ok, let's assume enough energy is being released in the combustion engine, no doubt about that, it's enough to run a car; the net sum  energy released in the combustion process, isn't that quantity equal (or even less) to the energy it did cost to separate the water (1836kJ/mol ) AND ionize the oxygen to 4th level (more than 7469.2 kJ/mol)?

you said yourself:
so my point is, I can see that it is possible to run a car on water, but I cannot see OU? Is the air processor a free ionizer and OU in itself?

(save your time by answering this if you already did, don't want to annoy by asking to repeat stuff, but i couldn't find it myself)

this is the link to the MIT video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQvXrxrqshk


Hi Alan,
Don't think in terms of OU for that is only a word ment to stop people from thinking. I can say this you are very perceptive for I to think that the water just might be being consumed but on a very small scale. I ran the numbers on the one gallon of water vs barrols of oil and I came up with 7.6 barrols of oil equal one gallon of water. So if you where able to fully return the water used to the system then you would get Stanley Meyer's numbers.

Yes I did put up an answer to that question, but I will add clarity to it. This is mother natures way to beat the system, for now we are talking eV and the reason it is so powerful is every atom is working in concert. In a capacitor all of the atoms on the surface are acting on the gasous atoms at 90 degree angles from the surface. In the corona discharge every atom is contributing the needed eV and it only takes 10.3eV to raise the energy level of oxygen to it's 8th level contrast to hydrogen needing 13.6eV. But I feel the gas processor will convert both oxygen and hydrogen, but the hydrogen can be lost and the net result of the reaction is small for hydrogen only put out 1312 kJ/mol. Here is something I just found on the net that explains it far better than I can: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-1/K.pdf If you ask me you hit the nail right on the head ;). For this is how lightining storms work to produce awsome power levels. 1 eV/molecule =  96.485309 kJ/mol and if you use Avogadro's number = 6.0221415 × 1023 you can find out the energy levels, but as for me I will just trust that it is working. There is no magic here everything can be explained.

One thought I think is also very important is being able to ask the right questions and then answering those questions. Stanley Meyer talks about this in some of his lectures the talk of question asking ability. It is how I was able to solve what really was taking place with the water for fuel injector system, and now that I am skilled at the proir arts I can make changes to the system to suit my needs. It took me 31 months of foolin around to finally ask the right questions, and once I did the whole water for fuel technology just opened up to me.

That is why I say, "Energy independence is now ours for the taking."
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 17, 2009, 08:28:36 PM
h2opower,
what do you think of this alternator sync pulse circuit i drew up.. notice the copper choke multi spool windings are connected to the air ionization and electron extraction... while the neg stainless choke is connected to the middle of alternators stator windings and water cap, the positive stainless is connected to the positive side of the alternators primarys induction and the water cap.. i think this will allow the dynamics electrical stress of opposite polarities and work like a microphone recieving feedback. the echoing effect being kept active due to rotational energy output of the alternator will put off emf.

outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 17, 2009, 08:41:35 PM
the secondary side only shows for one phase.. there are 3 in all.  120 out from each other which is what creates more of  a pure dc potential.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 17, 2009, 11:27:14 PM
Hi Outlawstc,
On the WFC the electron extraction circuit shares the positive electrode and is pulsed in the off times. That circuit(transformer) looks interesting, how is it working out for you?

On the other question you had about the spark a simple analogy will do. In a gasloine engine if the gas is atomized mixed with air and then gets no spark what happens? It's the same thing with the water injectors, since they are making hydrogen and oxygen by way of micro-mini capacitors. If you don't spark the reaction off it will not fire. The unstable oxygen atoms need this spark of energy to get started too. The rules of using fuels has not been changed just the type of fuel being used.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 18, 2009, 01:03:23 AM
i havent made it yet.. it is based of the multi spool drawing and the alternator setup. 

so you would agree that the injector is needed and that its ignition is based off thermal ignition caused by crossing voltage wave guide that consist of this capacitaded fuel gas.. causeing thermal/ static ignition of some sorts?


outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 18, 2009, 07:47:22 AM
No,
The injectors work exactly how science has shown me they do, by letting voltage perform work on the water molecule, and doing so in a way that takes full advantage of the properties of water. For the most part the way the injectors work is like a Kelvin generator, but it can be done in other ways. The most important part is creating atomized water mist that has been given an electric charge, making sure the conditions are such that the relaxation time of water is greater than the evaporation time, then mixing in charged air gases and recirculated exhaust gases. This resulting fuel mixture can either be spark or heat ignited, it says that right in the patent too many times to be just passed over, for it is important.

Most people have a problem with all of this for they are looking for some sort of magic, and/or been at it too long the wrong way. The anniversary of Stanley Meyer is on the 20th and I think it is about time someone made the man proud. In time I hope it becomes a global holiday for he did something to help humanity in it's time of need. All I did is figure out how he was able to use water as a fuel, and posted the results so everyone can enjoy energy independence. For in the end the credit goes to the pioneers of the water for fuel technology. For without Stanley Meyer's patents no one would be able to get pass all of the road blocks those protecting their interest have set up for this technology to fail. The patent has expired and now just as long as we stay within 14%, I think, we can build the units and use his patent when others try to repatent any idea of this sort of water for fuel system. Stanley Meyer opened up the doorway so that we all are free to walk through it. And now everyone the time is.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 18, 2009, 11:40:11 AM
well said h20power
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kippered on March 18, 2009, 06:05:40 PM
Indeed this is a great approach to the technology. Thanks for all of your work to understand the concepts while keeping the right mind space and letting the credit remain with the man who gave his life for the idea.

This gives me chills of excitement just thinking about the possibilities and I cant wait to see where it goes! I just need to wrap my head around it all and try to contribute as much as I can to the community and make it a reality for our world.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Room3327 on March 18, 2009, 06:52:44 PM
@h20power,
Quote
All I did is figure out how he was able to use water as a fuel, and posted the results so everyone can enjoy energy independence.

Does this mean you, or anyone else, has a working model putting out gas like Stan's, if this is already figured out have I missed the plans to construct this device? Why doesn't everyone quite working on this theoretically and start building?  I guess I don't get where you are coming from when you say this has all been figured out already, are you withholding knowledge from us and why? Where is a working unit posted here so I may see how all this works? Thank you.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 18, 2009, 07:39:39 PM
@Room3327

Now I am going to set this up as an engineering project as a result I will not tell you how to build, construct, and/or design your projects if you so choose to make them. The idea is simple, to get as many different models as possible that all work. You will be shown where the power truly comes from and how everything works for the water fuel injector system, not the WFC in use with the gasous type injectors. Read them as a set of rules to follow, anyway you see fit on how to apply what you have read is up to you.

Again I stress that this is to be a engineering type project, the full build of the design shall come from the individual and/or teams that want to work together on it. And most important of all is to have fun ;D.

Enjoy: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-7.html#post47874

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained.html

I have to stick to my guns on this, trust me I will not bend on these goals I set forth for anyone wishing to build these units will not receive any help or aid from me of any sort. If I tell people how to build it, it will be of my design and not from what they could come up with as a solution all their own. If anyone can't understand it all I can say is maybe this technology is not for you. I know that sounds mean and arrogant, but it is just the simple truth. Not everyone is cut out too be an engineer and/or master builder/designer, and I understand that.

In time some of these people and/or groups will put out their solutions, for the patent has expired. And I hope they would do so for the good of humanity. Learning to just take the savings this technology brings and pass on what you have learned to you fellow man hopefully will come with time. Trying to debate me for my reasoning in setting this up as an engineering project only leads to a dead end for I will not bend.

The math is set up as a worste case possibility and still it has more energy content than that of regular gasoline. Trust in science and math can be done by making all of the calculations for yourselves, for no one has to take my word for it, and I ask that no one does. Do the work for yourselves and you will see the math is good. The ability to ask the right questions is very much needed, but the ability to answer those questions is even more needed. This video tells how to go about this type of thinking: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/285.html

I hope this answers your question and I also hope you understand my point view of setting it up as an engineering project.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Room3327 on March 18, 2009, 08:31:50 PM
So you really have nothing but another theory like everyone else around here, that you want all of us to work on for you, is that the jist of it?
I don't mean this badly, your theory sounds intelligent and maybe it's the best way to go, all intelligent people don't always have the skills to build and construct some of these things. So using some peoples intelligence to come up with the idea and other people to do the construction work may be the way we need to go here, but this sounds just like a company with it's engineering dept. and manufacturing arm except it's all free.  Before I run off building things and spend a lot of money on stuff, I want to know the theory we are chasing is a valid one. And if you just need someone to build for you please be honest about it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on March 18, 2009, 10:01:39 PM
Dear H2Opower ,

You are not in touch with reality , the gas processor was replaced , it is gone . And your theory is flawed , if it was easy as xtra enegy levels we would be there ... But how the hell are you gonna take it to those *energy levels* ... With the gas processor ... oooo its so simple , all you have to do is say it 10 times and a perfect gas processor will appear in front of you .

Seriously h2opower , get real




Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kippered on March 18, 2009, 10:27:25 PM
Hardly a constructive approach Dankie. A better way might be to start another post to put forth your concepts like you have done in many posts and create a constructive thread using your methods.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 18, 2009, 10:33:47 PM
Don't worry about Dankie he has had the 430 SS wire for well over a year now and no working WFC or VIC constructed. He is nothing more that talk, no math, no science, just all talk. I view him as an enemy of the water for fuel technology and everyone should do the same. Just look at all of his post on this site and you will see what I mean, again don't take my word for it, look into this guy for yourselves. :o

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on March 18, 2009, 10:41:09 PM
A talker who makes things happen ...

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=132

Over a year ? lol I had the wire for under 3 months , plz refrain from making stuff up about me .

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1185&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 18, 2009, 11:12:19 PM
A talker who makes things happen ...

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=132

Over a year ? lol I had the wire for under 3 months , plz refrain from making stuff up about me .

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1185&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0





Do you forget who you are talk to Dankie? You where trying to sell us some of your 430 SS wire close to a year ago on IonizationX, and even on this sight dated 11/04/08. Everyone take a look and see how full of BS this guy really is for yourselves: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3112-430-fr-inductance-wire.html like I said before look into him and see that all he does is insult everyone and spread confussion for youselves, don't take my word for it look into his past. For he can't hide his history, though I'd be willing to bet he will erase that site message.

Quote
So ive seen Aaron talk about the resistance of the chokes , well the 11,600 ohms Meyers speaks of is just DC resistance ... impedance aside ..

Its true that to attain this resistance with copper you need about 45 times more.. or tiny very fragile wire..

Pm me for some
Attached Thumbnails
 
 
Ha! For less than three months go tell another one why don't you.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: CrazyEwok on March 19, 2009, 01:33:30 AM
Come on now H2O dankie is everyones friend... i mean it was only about 6 months ago now that he was offering a free set of steak knives with orders over 5kg of his wire!!! lol dankie your love is coming back around... pictures of a plastic spool with grooves is not going to impress many people. H2O - I think what a lot of people are doing is they have a lot of ideas on how this works but no-one is building and prooving. there is also a lot of nay sayers that tell you they have done that and it doesn't work. they can't tell what happened or why it didn't work. Or even supply proof that they tried in most cases but they are more thna happy to tell you it doesn't work... or from some people the term "unacceptable" has been thrown around. Relax build it and let your results be your muscles... As for dankie lets face the more people that don't try to follow him the less people there are to buy his damn wire...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dave45 on March 19, 2009, 02:55:33 AM
its gotta work

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kidsicu2 on March 19, 2009, 05:33:52 AM
loner
thanks for your post, the long one. I recently finished a biography on tesla by a British woman. I was fascinated by the wireless lighting that he used for years in his labs. are you saying that you reproduced that with a tesla coil? I'm interested in finding where to look for the DIY. got side tracked alittle. I'm looking for the DIY not the why with hho or h production. Some theoretician can explain the why.

My understanding of tesla and his non-accomplishments would have made todays world look like the dark ages. i doubt he would have called it aether, but would have talked of using the same.

i really don't have anything to add to this discussion other than i think stan meyer did it well enough to get the MIB concerned.(polite) I also follow OU to hear what I'm hearing. low cost, mobile hydrogen/browns gas production is our worlds salvation!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 19, 2009, 05:49:41 AM
Kidsicu2
I think you meant to post in Farrah Days thread Here  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7040.20;topicseen

Dave 45

 I would be curious to hear  Farrah Days take on your pic
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 19, 2009, 07:05:44 AM
Hi Dave,
I thought that was your version of a Gas Processor for a second. It would have been the most interesting one I have seen to date.

For anyone trying to build the whole set up each item I go over needs to be built with exception of the Steam resonator for you can use engine heat to raise the temps of the water prior to injection also, but it can't hurt to build it. The rules are simple: Water mist, ionized air gases, and recirculated exhaust gases. Things to strive for are fast rates of evaporation of the resulting water mist, variable voltage control of the gas processor that is controled by engine rpm and load conditions or more, controlable exhaust recirculation, and the circuitry to control it all. This set up will need two VIC transformers one for the Gas Processor and one for the injector, but if you find other ways to get the job done by all means do so.

I go over every part I felt was needed except for the circuitry, but if I left anything out feel free to add it in or if you find ways to cut componets out feel free to do so. For I am looking for many different ways this technology can be done thats the whole point of doing it like this.
I posted some patents on the energeticforum since they couldn't be posted here.

Hope everyone understands,

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dave45 on March 19, 2009, 06:21:33 PM
My setup and purpose is to try and build the gas gun to strip the electrons from the Oxygen, I plan to separate the H and O at the electrolyzer run the O through the gas gun and recombine at the orifice of a torch or heater.
 If successful with the gas gun I will be able to go through the gas gun or bypass it to see the results first hand.
 The pic is just a mock up and still got a ways to go plan on installing the HV ionizer soon, in the next day or so as time permits. Im not trying to use the vic or the SM circuits just what I have on hand to make it work proof of concept as it were, the rest can be worked out later by people with more expertise than me.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on March 19, 2009, 06:41:51 PM
H2opower you are somekind of fascist dude .

You are ignoring all the important parts and over-emphisizing the parts that were abandonned . You are not taking into account this phase conjugate opposite wave , you are ignoring much of the tech brief .

Once again , I turned out to be right about this , just like I was right about the VIC , Dynodon came up with  those bobbins are the multispool VIC after I asked him too for many weeks .

But you sir are just annoying , and you are a fascist to this tech .

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1268

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Mark69 on March 19, 2009, 09:42:08 PM
@Dankie and H2oPower,

To settle all the "I have the better way" (mainly from Dankie), why not put both of your systems to the test at the same time in one place.  There can be a few members to wherever it is done to document the event.  Then everyone will be able to see who is right and who is wrong.
Dankie, why are you attacking H2o to begin with?

@H2o,  can this be modified to work for a home heating furnace in place of natural gas?  Do you have any plans on creating something like that?  I think that would be a great next step to conquer, affordable home heating for everyone.  I don't think I have the know how or ability to build this as is and would need very simplified and specific plans.
Thanks,
Mark
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 19, 2009, 10:40:51 PM
@Dankie and H2oPower,

To settle all the "I have the better way" (mainly from Dankie), why not put both of your systems to the test at the same time in one place.  There can be a few members to wherever it is done to document the event.  Then everyone will be able to see who is right and who is wrong.
Dankie, why are you attacking H2o to begin with?

@H2o,  can this be modified to work for a home heating furnace in place of natural gas?  Do you have any plans on creating something like that?  I think that would be a great next step to conquer, affordable home heating for everyone.  I don't think I have the know how or ability to build this as is and would need very simplified and specific plans.
Thanks,
Mark

Hi Mark69,
I am going to home power generation, converting gen sets to run on water. I might convert some cars that are like mine, but for the most part I am starting with home power units. If you run the numbers Mark69 you will see they check out just fine, and are a scientific proof of concept. For after all isn't that what the science guys where asking for? They all say that there wasn't enough energy content and I proved there was if done right. And they always say that it is breaking the laws of physics and again I proved that it is not mathematically which is what the science guys wanted. They say you can't get more energy out than you put into it, but ask them to explain a lightening storm and all you will get it a lot of shoulder shrugging. I now think of them as the tobacco scientist paid to tell a lie with a straight face to the public with lots of media coverage for they are their right hand man.

Dankie and I have a past is all. I once got a chance to talk to Tad Johnson(h2opowered) but the Ionizationx site owners deleted all of my post towards him and robed me of my freedom of speech, so I as a result I left the site and deleted all of my post there. Dankie is nothing more than one of their butt boys that was on watch when things where heating up on that site alerting the owner members I was on the site deleting all of my post and/or had made a post the owners wouldn't want anyone on the site reading as I told the truth of my story so they could delete it. I wish I could have gotten the chance to speak with Tad, but sadly they're combined efforts stopped me from doing so. Now he is hell bent on a quest to kill the water for fuel technology for reasons unknown to me, perhaps he is getting paid too just like the pro tobacco scientist where and still are.

Try to find Stanley Meyer's patent on the hydrogen burners to see what he did to control the heat of the reaction. I think he made the units so they redirected the exhaust back into the flame or something like that to control the heat of the reaction. As for a competion with Dankie no way I would waste my time with him, for I am moving fowards and not going around in circles. Plus I don't have the time or funds to waste right now for I am going full speed ahead, and if he gets in my way I will run over him.

Well, I hope you the best of luck as I do all of the water for fuel people around the globe bringing enegy independence into being.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kippered on March 19, 2009, 11:01:47 PM
Good to see you are going after the holy grail rather than just worrying about transportation. With clean sources of electricity we can do pretty much anything including transportation.

I have allot of learning to do but I cant wait to see where I can take this myself! I am quite a bit behind most but that doesnt take the fun out of the ride along the way, in fact I hope you all beat me to the finish line but If not I will help bring you there once I get close.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 20, 2009, 12:36:48 AM
Good to see you are going after the holy grail rather than just worrying about transportation. With clean sources of electricity we can do pretty much anything including transportation.

I have allot of learning to do but I cant wait to see where I can take this myself! I am quite a bit behind most but that doesnt take the fun out of the ride along the way, in fact I hope you all beat me to the finish line but If not I will help bring you there once I get close.

Hi Kippered,
You got that right, if you produce your own power and you have an electric car you kill two birds with the same stone. Energy independence means, for me, starting at home first. If you have a boat house it even gets better no more fuel tank just get the water as you go ;D. Plus for emergency power gen set units can also be made to provide potable water on site. If we learned one thing from Katrina is oil/coal type fuel is hard to come by when desaster strikes. People every year die in there homes due to the energy enslavement game, couldn't afford to pay the heating or cooling bills, and the power genaration companies/energy sellers are fine with that. This is a world wide problem killing millions each year, though there are a lot of other factors involed, energy independence will be a big step in the right direction. Trust me I know exactly what this technology can do, for if you really want to go to Mars this technology will get you there and beyound. In my view this technology is the key to humanity moving forwards again.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on March 20, 2009, 12:48:49 AM
Hi Kippered,
You got that right, if you produce your own power and you have an electric car you kill two birds with the same stone. Energy independence means, for me, starting at home first. If you have a boat house it even gets better no more fuel tank just get the water as you go ;D. Plus for emergency power gen set units can also be made to provide potable water on site. If we learned one thing from Katrina is oil/coal type fuel is hard to come by when desaster strikes. People every year die in there homes due to the energy enslavement game, couldn't afford to pay the heating or cooling bills, and the power genaration companies/energy sellers are fine with that. This is a world wide problem killing millions each year, though there are a lot of other factors involed, energy independence will be a big step in the right direction. Trust me I know exactly what this technology can do, for if you really want to go to Mars this technology will get you there and beyound. In my view this technology is the key to humanity moving forwards again.

h2opower.

Although I do not agree with your views , I agree with this , you are free yo share your views here . You knows know what I think of your views , I was free to share my opinion .

I will no longer post in this thread
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on March 20, 2009, 12:51:29 AM
Hi Kippered,
You got that right, if you produce your own power and you have an electric car you kill two birds with the same stone. Energy independence means, for me, starting at home first. If you have a boat house it even gets better no more fuel tank just get the water as you go ;D. Plus for emergency power gen set units can also be made to provide potable water on site. If we learned one thing from Katrina is oil/coal type fuel is hard to come by when desaster strikes. People every year die in there homes due to the energy enslavement game, couldn't afford to pay the heating or cooling bills, and the power genaration companies/energy sellers are fine with that. This is a world wide problem killing millions each year, though there are a lot of other factors involed, energy independence will be a big step in the right direction. Trust me I know exactly what this technology can do, for if you really want to go to Mars this technology will get you there and beyound. In my view this technology is the key to humanity moving forwards again.

h2opower.

Altought I do not agree with your views , I agree with this .

You are free to share your views and I am free to critisize them . I will no longer post on this thread .
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 20, 2009, 12:52:26 AM
H20power
Now your talking!!

This is the time to go full speed ahead !!{not in circles]
Chet


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: CrazyEwok on March 20, 2009, 01:46:15 AM
HP,
Your cell design functions well enough to power a motor vehicle? If so are you willing to place plans up on a seperate thread here for members to replicate? if not its understandable. I do have some questions if you have plans/more information on your cell so i can pick the parts i have questions about.

Also to the many readers on this thread, if any of you have experiance/knowledge on electricity conversion. specifically i am looking at converting 12-13V @ ~10-20 amp down into the 100-200 ma or lower and wanted to figure out the most efficient way of doing it. Pulsing voltage through coils is up but has anyone found ways to increase its efficientcy?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Mark69 on March 20, 2009, 04:54:38 AM
@H2O  thanks for the info and I second what crazyEwok says, if you could put plans up separate so we can follow what works w/o spending alot and building something wrong (and wasting money and time).  Also if building wrong someone might hurt themself, like me lol  If you get the power gen working then one wouldnt need the gas furnace conversion, but I think it would still be better then electric heat.  Burning the hho would give you natural moisture and humidity and make the heat better for you at the same time.  But that can be an item tackled at a later date.

@Dankie, I appreciate you professionalism with your last post, but you can always contribute your knowledge to help us beginners.  No one wants to shut someone out who can help.

Thanks all,
Mark
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 20, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
Loner
Injectors can handle this[diesel] direct combustion chamber injection
I don't know that we should get the splitting hairs efficiency that user spewing claims, but some where in between just dumping HHO In the intake and direct injection we could probably run a generator on less HH0 with this method [allowing ambient air to purge the exhaust refill the cylinder ,,just inject what we need]

 I know this is not the finale intent here [brute force][ But it could yield quick results ,as the other tech becomes better understood

Chet
PS and yes Loner I know you ran a genset on HH0 years ago
God speed  Loner
PPS something on brute force and HHo from user Ironheads research group, running a generator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VteoVsK93Mg
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Digits on March 20, 2009, 02:44:09 PM
Hi you all

I have read this and to me it makes sense What H2O power says.
I also was trying to move my efforts to the gas gun instead of the water fuel cell and it was great coming on this morning and finding this plethora of info thanks H2O

You have answered my question on the higher energy fields cause that was a stumbling block but now it does make sense.
I was going to build a voltage pump my one friend build allot of these,it's a piece of mesh wire that stripes electrons off nice big arches comes of these,so I reckoned the water must be in a gaseous form before I can utilize this like the gas gun, so when I read the comments this morning it all made sense thanks

Does some one have plans for a setup so that we can start work?
In the following week I will draft my experiments and start working on them I will happily share when finished

H2O you said Stan made 7l/min to run his buggy, I achieved 12l/min with the Boyce setup but as I can get from what you have posted is that is is not the quantity so much but the how much you excite the gas (an higher energy state) so this is the new goal right?
And can some one help me with the LED or Lazar thing, is this a normal red led or a real Lazar we are talking about.

Thanks guys enjoyed this,I'll wait for the replies

Digits
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Mark69 on March 20, 2009, 03:20:31 PM
Also, I m looking for the patent for the Gas Processor; reading H2o's post on the other site state that the gas processor is the key.  Can someone tell me, post a link, or pdf of the patent for the gas processor?  Oh and the VIC?  (still reading the posts on the other site)

Thanks!
Mark
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 20, 2009, 05:37:09 PM

                  HHO as A CAR FUEL COMPARED TO GASOLINE
         
                        From user  Creativity    Very good reading

                ,and reason for a gas processor or as Stan Meyer said an

                                            """"" ACCELERATOR ''''''''''

Let us calculate how much an engine needs to run.Goal is to calculate an amount of air and fuel used.I will calculate the air needs in liters as we are interested here in volumes to compare it later to the volumes of H2 or H2,O2 gases needed to run an engine.
First of all who still has no knowledge of AFR (air fuel ratio) please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio

1)Now our good running engine uses around 14,7 g of air per 1g of gasoline (heptan,octane mixture),that comes out of AFR calculation of perfect burning.I will make an example how to calculate the AFR for a given fuel:

C7H16 + 11O2 ->7C02 + 8H20

heptane has a moll mass = 7*12+16*1=100 [g/mol]
we are using air as an oxidant so we have also nitrogen present and it is 79 % of volume of air.It will give us around 41 molecules of N2 in this situation.So our air mole mass=11*16*2 + 41*14*2=1.500 [g/mol]
 now 1.500/100 = 15 this is our AFR for heptane.

2)just how much is this 14,7 g of air in volume?

Air has density of 1,2 g/liter.Volume is then =12,25 liter

3)let assume that our engine uses 10l of gasoline to drive our car 100km/h in 1hour.So an engine of around 2-2,5 liters of displacement,rated with around 150HP( i assume ,but i feel it can be also quite good calculated out of engine efficiency and gasoline caloric value).
How much air volume will it use?

Density of gasoline 737,22 [g/liter] shows us that we used 7.372g of it for our trip.
So air used=14,7*7.372=108.368 g.
It is then =108.368/1,2= 90.307 liters of air.

4)How much of air was used per minute?

90.307/60=1505 liters

5)how much fuel per minute was used?

7.372/60=123 g

6) and when the fuel was evaporated how much space it occupied?

Gasoline expands around 220 times in volume when evaporated(comes from comparison of density ratio of liquid gasoline with the gaseous form) , so we used 2200liters of evaporated gasoline.
It is around 2200/60=37 [liters/minute].

OK let as got some attention to our big question of using H2,O2.From a SAE technical paper i have a graphic describing the effects of adding H2 into the internal combustion engine runned on CNG.Graphic speaks about the possibility of further shift of lean mixture AFR limit when H2 was feed to the fuel.Unfortunately i can`t put this graphic here because it is copy righted.But i think copyright allows me to say what is the effect observed Smiley Lean limit of pure gasoline is around AFR =25:1 according to this source.Adding of 8% of H2 into the combustion shifts AFR to lean limit of 26 :1.So it is a shift of 4%.Further addition of around 20% of H2 shifts AFR to 27,5:1 resulting in relative 9% shift.So it makes some sence to add H2 to the engine.

This effect was described for addition of pure H2,however i believe if H2,O2 was used effect could be slightly different.Result of electrolysis in form of a H2,O2 mix has 33% of volume made of O2.I could think of two situations:
a)extra oxygen would lean the charge even more and counteract the H2 effect
b)oxygen would assist the burning of the fuel by adding extra heat to burn even leaner charge.

Now let me try to calculate the H2 burning in air.I will try to make analogical calculations as for heptane,just to see how much of the H2 would we need to run our can in a situation as above.

2H2 + O2 ->2H2O

AFR (2*16+3,76*2*14)/(2*2)=34,25 :1

it is 34,25/1,2=28,5 liters of air per 1g of H2.

This time we need to know how much energy was released in gasoline engine,because we want to make our hydrogen car to run at least as well as our gasoline car.In the first example we used 7.372g of gasoline for our trip,this would translate to 327MJ produced.I won`t take into consideration the efficiency of the engine,i just assume it won`t change substantially under pure H2.I make this assumption to make first approximation of amount of H2 required to run an engine.Later we can add efficiency to the calculation.
327MJ translates to 327[MJ]/130[MJ/Kg]= 2.517 g of hydrogen used to make the same work.
Now volumes:

0,09 g/liter is the density of H2 gas.

0,09*2.517=27.967 liters of H2 gas

As in our previous example all of it was used in 1h time for our trip.It is 27.967/60 = 466 liters of gaseous H2 per minute!.
Norm amount to produce from on-board electrolysis alone,no?But that is not the end now.Just compare the numbers:

Our car on gasoline used 90.307 liters of air + 10 liters of not yet evaporated fuel.This all went for the trip.I use 10l of gasoline because when it was feed to the engine most of its evaporation process took place inside of the cylinder.
Our car would need to use 27.967 liters of H2 + 2.517*28,5 liters of air in total to burn it for the trip.IT is 99.701/90.317= 1,1 times more volume of gases would have to go through the engine(so volumetric efficiency would have to improve).We simply suck not enough oxygen from the air to burn our H2.Our engine would have to be supercharged or rpm would have to go higher for the same power demand.

Situation would be different if we used 2H2,O2 mixture(as from electrolyser).In that case AFR would be a bit more tricky to calculate.We have here an extra oxygen feed and exactly as much as we need,In this case oxygen from the air is not needed at all and a result will be that we run lean mixture.Problem gets not easier when we feed more H2,O2.In that case we get more power and hot running engine,feeding even more will result in big explosions and only way i can see would be inject water to cool down the engine and slow down the burning.Maybe dumping of some oxygen from the electrolyser outside of the engine could help,just to achieve a stoichiometric mixture for H2 without adding more of H2 and ruining the engine.

Coming back to our car trip  Grin.We still want to produce the same energy as in pure gasoline or H2 case.This time we have extra oxygen available so volumetric efficiency won`t suffer,no supercharging or higher revving will be needed.We can then stick to gasoline base case  90.317 liters of charge introduced to the engine during the trip.The reason is that we can manipulate the amount of oxygen supplied to burn H2.We have an excess of oxygen so we will dump all the oxygen that could cause lean burn.We use as in a pure H2 case  27.967 liters of H2.The  90.317 - 27.967=62.350 liters will have to contain all the oxygen we need.Only air won`t support enough oxygen (as shown in pure H2 usage case),supplying of all the O2 from electrolyse,next to ordinary air will give us too much oxygen.Wear have to find how much of the O2 we need to burn stoichiometric(the best).
 coming back to :

2H2 + O2 ->2H2O

What we see here is we use 1 volume of O2 for every 2 volumes of H2 to have a nice burn.We have 27.967 liters of H2 so we need the half of it in volume of O2.

1-{[62.350 -27.967/2])/62.350}= 0,224

With above formule i calculated what part of the total air and O2 supplied has to be the oxygen.In easy words we need upgrade air to have 22,4% of oxygen.The rest of the oxygen we don`t need anymore.With this i offer you ,the one who had a long road to read through all this calculations  Grin  Cool my respect Smiley.As a reward i can bring u step closer to the solution of an on-board hydrogen production.

                            BELOW IS MR PASZKOWKI"S  THEORY[on going]


I am an author of an idea as follows:
As u see oxygen release from the electrolysis is not what we want.We can make a small amount of O2 (2,5% of air volume sucked to the engine) but it costs us a big penalty of energy used to release this oxygen from OH bond.Sure we can Strip it and get this one extra hydrogen,that is what you all do in electrolysis.I say it is not the way.Use this energy to strip another water molecule of the only one Ht.As well as combustion engine,fuel cell can also use oxygen from the air.What i see, is usage of the low energy electrolysis with minimal OH bond braking rate.This cell will produce almost only hydrogen that can be feed to the fuelcell to produce electricity with air oxygen.This system has a chance to become overunity.The secret of the not stripping of the OH bond will stay for a moment here.I have to finalise my long research on it first.

all the best,
Bartosz Paszkowski

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 20, 2009, 05:59:10 PM
Mark
Stans patents

Some more info [mostly all] on Stan

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2265617/water-to-combustable-Stanley-MeyersWater-FuelCellTechnical-BriefFULL

Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Mark69 on March 20, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Thanks Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 20, 2009, 06:44:52 PM
What Stanley Meyer says makes a lot of sense for he says 4 or more electrons have to be stripped off of the oxygen atoms. When I made my energy content comparisons at the 4th energy level is when the reaction over takes the reaction of gasoline. And if you keep on going to oxygen's 8th level it is 44k-108k barrels of oil, depending on the grade of the gasolin. So, Stanley Meyer had to have made these same calculations I have, he just never put any of this in his patents. So, 2 H-H bonds formed 872 kJ/mol + 84078.0 kJ/mol = 84,950 kJ/mol(1BTU/1.055 kJ)(1mol/.018L)(3.78541L/gal)= 16,933,679.8BTUs/gal. 1US gallon gasoline = 115,000 Btu's, so it takes 147.249 gallons of gasoline(19.2gal of gasoline/1 barrel of oil) so 7.67 barrels of oil needed for one gallon of water's energy content without recycling any of the water. Now Meyer must have added the fact that you can put the water back into the tank, so my guess is water is being consumed in some small amount with this reaction.

As for the VIC transformer all of the coils must hit resonance at the same time, that is to say each bobbin cavity must hit resonance with the primary coil at the same time. There is more than one way to do this, what I noticed Stanley Meyer doing was to alter the wire sizes too match inductances of every bobbin coil to that of the primary coil. Thus when the primary coil hits resonance so does every bobbin cavity of both the secondary, and dual chokes.  This way is most effeicnt use of the VIC transformer, noteing that there are two types of transformers and the use of each type is another story.

The energy content calculations are answering what the scientist have been asking about Stanley Meyer's technology for all of these years. It is a ionic reaction that is short lived, that is saying we only have a short period of time to conduct the react with the unstable oxygen atoms, and that time, as far as I can tell, is 0.74 seconds. If you calculate the gas speeds inside of the intake system you will find that that is plenty of time to get the unstable oxygen atoms into the combustion chamber and run the ionic reaction which Stanley Meyer calls Thermo Explosive Energy or The Hydrogen Fracturing Process. One thing that is truly needed in working with Stanley Meyer patents is a definition of terms of Stanley Meyers' words. For example it took me well over a year to figure out what the "bidirectional wrap" ment in the VIC injectors primary coil. Now I ask everyone reading this to tell me what a Bidirectional wrap is, after you all give it a shot I will tell you what it means. Stanley Meyer's patents are full of words like this, and it took me a long time to learn to talk as he did.

But I will say this all of us must strive for understanding, for it is very important, for if I just dump a set of plans online what happens when something breaks or malfuctions? You have to make the whole darn thing all over again for you don't know anything about the technology enough to fix it, or come running to me and I will drop what I am doing and find you wherever you are on the globe and trouble shoot it for you. You must have the understanding of how the system works so you can fix it if something goes wrong. That is yet another reason why I set it up as an engineering project for it fources you to understand the technology before you build it.

On the LEDs you should try and match oxygens wavelengths here is a site that give at least 73 of them, but note there are more: http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/
Trying to figure out which ones will work best, your on your own for I am right in the game with you on that one.

Hope this helps everyone to see why I did things this way.
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 20, 2009, 06:59:55 PM
Today marks the 11th year since the death of Stanley Meyer. I for one wish to tell his family members his dream of using water as an fuel source is still alive and well, and "We The People" are doing what we can to make his dream a reality for the whole world.

This should be a site holiday at the least, don't you think?

Best Regards,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 20, 2009, 08:33:00 PM
what do you think of this h2Opower? is this the bibirectional you speak of?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 20, 2009, 10:05:28 PM
Here is an example of something that is Bi-Directionaly wraped. I was on the upset side when I finnally found out what that word meant to say the least. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-7.html#post49552

All it is, is a fancy word for something that is Cross Wrapped. After all this time, huh? Just wrap 1st layer 45 degrees one way and 2nd layer 45 degrees the other way.

For a lot of people this will be the first time you have ever understood what that word meant, why couldn't Stanley Meyer just say it was "Cross Wrapped" your guess is good as mine, but at least now you know. Oh, and the wire is parallel bonded bifilar wire that he used so he could make the coils the same as Tesla's in a way.

Just for everyones information,
h2opower.

PS I am really not liking the small upload this site has.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 21, 2009, 12:56:30 AM
H20 power
The boss knows how to do this

I will try to summon him

Can't Loner get a smiley face?

Chet

PS Hopefully there will be a Stan Meyer Day [soon]

God speed



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 21, 2009, 01:39:27 AM
Yeah I guess since he was close ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) @Loner

But you will find a lot of things like that in the patent, words that Stanley Meyer used that don't have the same meaning as the rest of the world or are words that have long been forgoten to most people.

Not sure if this was for patent protection or if that was really the way he talked.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kinesisfilms on March 21, 2009, 07:11:06 AM
yes that is the correct term for bidirectional wrap.....it should be seen as obvious but i can see where people get confused......it's not just single words that confuse people......it's multiple confusing words in one confusing statement.....hopefully our friend john will pull through in his final winds.....hopefully this technology is about to see the light of day.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 21, 2009, 03:20:48 PM
Loner
same problem here
I pm'd Stephan yesterday about this problem of H20 not being able to post pics and info here

Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kinesisfilms on March 21, 2009, 06:32:09 PM
a caduceus coil is very unique but does not play a part in stanley meyers work.....scalar waves do not reflecting on metal surfaces (orany surface really) therefore defeating the prupose of the electrodes in a water fuel capcitor.....we need standard normal waves.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: hartiberlin on March 21, 2009, 10:55:58 PM
You can post pictures attached as to the size of 250 Kbytes,
in the upload directory
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=upload
up to 5 MB and if it is bigger,
please upload to rapidshare.de or megaupload.com
or simular sites and post the link here.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 22, 2009, 01:22:04 AM
Thank you Stefan

Make it so H20

Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 25, 2009, 12:49:40 AM
H20 power
I can appreciate the fun part.This tech covers 4 maybe 5 fields of expertise?
If its to happen in this century [and you have ANY PART FIGURED OUT]
TIME IS SHORT, people improve and modify by our nature,we don't need a class we need results!! I'm not trying to be a schmuck here ,I just don't see the time frame for class's any more
And the geography of our country is not conducive to forming small groups[like some small European countries]
Hope you can clear up some foggy views here
Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 25, 2009, 02:05:00 AM
Ramset be honest what do you want from me ???
Do you see no value in learning, no value in independent thought ??? Just what do you want me to do ??? I can tell you this I am not doing like Stanley Meyer, but I followed all the rules. Through understanding we can make many systems that all work, not just one system that those that sell energy can block. If you think for one second that the power generation industry is just going to lay down and call it quits you have another thing coming.

From what I read in your response, looking between the lines, is you are unwilling to learn and want your Happy Meal right now! You nolonger feel the need to work for it, and let me tell you this something given has no value. Example I have posted this on many sites and always I get negetive feedback, sure I get some good feedback too, but the majority is negetive, why? Because I gave it away and ask nothing in return, but now that I changed that and ask that people learn and strive for understanding, people have no will for waiting and want the whole cake right now! What if I told you I did already, I put out all I know, would you belive me ??? No, you wouldn't for you would always think I was holding back wouldn't you ???

I really hate the micorwave generation for they have no will to live, can see no value in doing the work themselves, and always keep their thoughts into the furture never paying attention to what they are doing or where they are going. One of my college instructors put it best, "To ask the question of how long this is going to take is not the right question for time will go by anyway, for what they should be asking is when that time comes around where will I be?" Get too work, for I am not going to mess up the power of independent thought for anyone, and that you can count on.

Best Regards,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 25, 2009, 10:04:57 AM
H2opower
The powers that be used to concern me ,seeing what a mess things are in, it is hard for me to see their organizational skills
There are to many players in the powers that be game ,the world is like a big poker game with
very high stakes
Sorry I come across like I want a happy meal

Its the mystery of water I'm trying to get my head around

I go by some old rules
Onto whomsoever much is given ,much is required.
 give a man a fish he has a meal [and waits for you to catch another]Teach a man to fish,he doesn't need you anymore and will teach others

Throwing seeds around is good ,a few gardening tips might be helpful from time to time

Your contribution here and other places are great. I will study your posts some more to get my head around this. I don't want to run a car I want to make HHO to warm homes and grow crops and make power
Thank you for your help and focus
Chet

I do not want to be seen as an ingrate
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 30, 2009, 10:30:56 PM
to whom it may concern,

i have been studying stan meyers works for around a year now and i have figured it out.. and how to explain it in its simplest form of expresion.

For every question there’s an answer, for every answer there’s a question there the same in relation but there are two differences involved to get action, distortion and clarity. When you are born, distortion of all reality is at its highest. Its simple times of life, the beginning... the mind is not full of mixed signals created from experience that happens in time... its blind. As we go through life we find clarity in many things and it gives us a sense of enlightenment and or a sense of troubles... distortions and clarity can create gain working in opposition to each other. The gain is wisdom and the truth. One step forward towards the question, brings you one step closer to the truth. Hey it may be a bumpy road but its builds character. What shows the truth? Reflection. They make us walk in circles now days, surrounded by nothing but distortion. Some of us have intuition gods people... some have ignorance the devils infantry. There is so much truth in this .if you don’t understand it read it again and again. Since each time you read it, it shall bring you one step closer. To the truth, one step closer to intuitive instincts and also take you one step away from ignorance at the same time hey its duality vice versa!! life has to many variables and complexities to predict and prepare ahead of the time in most cases.. so the only thing you can do is BE prepare for the ride 24/7.. and in the present time of relativity it seems like it might get ruff. so hold on tight and dont shit yourself. the truth is im as real as they come these days haha.. what does your intuition say? i say bitch dont judge me see its vice versa lol

thats the theory of relativity in my words.. and stans tech  works off of the vice versa duality in nature..
that is the most important basic thing i think i will ever be able to write on paper in my life when it comes to lifes actions in there simplest forms that creates our complex life. from our perspective. its the dualitys of multiple forces that paint the canvas..  stan set up a controlled environment for specific duality forces.

i hope this can make a impact on the word.. einstiens theory of relativity e=mc2.... the C squared is determine by the speed of light. which is a variable determine by resistance, like when light travels through glass.. it slows down the light due to the resistive properties.so the constant rate changes..
people dont realize that power has a vice versa.. its vice versa positve and negative happen to be light and electrons.. they make us think theres just the force of electrons.. which is false..  they do so by saying current is what establishes pole orientation for north and south.. which it does.. but theres 2 ways to skin a cat.

cheers,
outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 31, 2009, 12:03:59 AM
Interesting,
In my studies the most simplest answer to Stanley Meyer's technology is; Under a controled state change the atmospher to one that is suitable for water combustion. The intake system of a car or most any other form of fossile fuel burning is a controled atmospher created by man to best suit combustion of that fuel. Water is no different when viewed for use as a fuel, for what happens when a fossile fuel injector doesn't atomize the fuel? That cylanders power is gone from the engine for the fuel wont burn when sprayed in by a stream. All the rules of using fuels apply to water as use as a fuel aswell, if you are to use it directly you must atomized it in a controled envirenment suitable to water combustion.

Hope that helps everyone to understand it all better,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 31, 2009, 12:30:48 AM
Outlawstc
I actually did read that post over and over {liked it}

H2opower
Thank you for all your help here

I am quite sure, do to men like yourselves and others

THIS WILL NOT STAY A DREAM [of mine anyway] reality is so much better!!

Chet

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 31, 2009, 08:12:10 PM
why is snow white? is a question asked by stephen meyer on the water for fuel radio blog..

this is the best answer i can comprehend in the present time.. snow is white because it is reflecting all the energy that hits it.. why? because when water goes into a expanded state it starts to reflect. whether it be hot or cold. clouds or snow. but when its cold the oxygen forms alot of little air bubbles in the snow which makes a crystal defect.. they are like a bunch of mirrors in the snow  multiplying and reflecting.. so maybe  the silicon content in the stainless when put under the mechanical stress during manufacturing is  causing crystal defects and is like a layer of snow on the stainless.. those defects can be doped under electrical mechanical stress?  if ones doped with light when its running at high voltage  the resonant positive plate creates the variability of the vacuum constant rate of einstiens theory..  the vacuum state of light.. tesla allways said that lower frequencys are more powerfull when it comes to power generation.  its all about balance.. the word amp scares us in stans work because we think its the only form of current.. ITS not.. when producing electric you will allways have a current its a action which requires trade!!!! when electric is allways being thrown out of balance it makes the copper atoms nucleus flop back and forth.. it is creating alot of turbulance for the trade of light and electrons.. it is also causeing the solid matter part of the atom to create friction.. so wires get hot..  but when theres a balanced bidirectional flow of electrons and light you create divinity in there trades.. the nucleus of the copper lines up it poles in a capacitive manner..so the turbulant amps is what we know of as the only type..  best example.. two 500 gallon tanks next to each other.. with a  5 inch pipe connecting them with a valve for isolation... we will call them tank a and tank b..   tank a has 1000 psi while tank b has -500 psi..   when you open the valve its not just tank a flowing into b.. they are flowing into each other.. vice versa ya know.. BUT a vacuum state is a mirror state of the pressure state.. if tank a is 1000psi and its mirror tank b is -500 theres not balance for non turbulent environment.. now you have a turbulent  trade!!! which causes heat and amps..  imagine tank a and tank b flowing into each other..  vacuum flowing to pressure.   pressure flowing to vacuum.. BUT tank a has more pressure so while there trading evenly at a 1-1 ratio tank a is turbulently rolling more high pressure towards the low tank.. it creates a turbulent current towards b and there for the roll is giving it a higher quantity trade to tank b in a relative timely manner.. everything in this world is predictable with advanced technology... just not as a whole..  we can set certain controlled states like stan did which are completely predictable.. for what we need to achieve and move one step further in life.. lifes all about trading and differences with balance in life one should trade in a evenly manner with the fellow man  at the least.. that keeps a neutral environment of peace.. keeping turbulence non existence..  but as the bible says the more you do for others you shall be repaid by 2?? its because we are suppose  to be crystal defects and when we reflect  we should be like the snow and multibly in potential... but they keep us doped with toxins to where we dont react propper they fill us with negativity to where we want to absorb all the light we receive. it makes us greedy in nature.. everything i have wrote the past couple day explains it all.. life if you dont see what i see which is the ultimate gift then keep reading what i wrote.. it will bring you one step closer.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on March 31, 2009, 08:23:40 PM
Quote
Interesting,
In my studies the most simplest answer to Stanley Meyer's technology is; Under a controled state change the atmospher to one that is suitable for water combustion

sure i could say that is the simplest way to say it as well if you already know. not when your sharing it with someone.. more or less a statement like yours that i quoted is just trying to justify smarts. . its like your painiting is distorted and mine has detail.. the more detail, the more truth is SEEN taking away the blindness of the curtains... when you see something enough it becomes familiar and when it becomes familiar it is more easily recognized when being seen in distortion.. like your quote..


outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 31, 2009, 08:40:20 PM
Here are the ionization energy levels of oxygen:
• 1st 1313.9 kJ/mol
• 2nd 3388.3 kJ/mol
• 3rd 5300.5 kJ/mol
• 4th 7469.2 kJ/mol
• 5th 10909.5 kJ/mol
• 6th 13326.5 kJ/mol
• 7th 71330.0 kJ/mol
• 8th 84078.0 kJ/mol
Now let us take a look at the reaction to break and form the water molecule under normal conditions.
4 H-O 459 kJ/mol bonds are broken taking 1836 kJ/mol to do so.
2 H-H 436 kJ/mol bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 498 kJ/mol are formed yielding 1370 kJ/mol.

This is why all scientist say it takes more energy to break the bonds of water than you get from combining them, for the net sum of the reaction is negative, 1370-1836 = -466 kJ/mol.

Now the new reactions after the GP has stripped the electrons off of the oxygen atom are known as ionic reactions. Let’s take a look at the 1st energy level of 1313.9 kJ/mol.

The new reaction to form the water molecule 1st energy level:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 1313.9 kJ/mol are formed yielding 2185.9 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is now positive 2185.9-1836 = +349.9 kJ/mol, so now we are getting more energy out than in. To give the energy level a bench mark for comparison the energy content of gasoline is +4864 kJ/mol. So only striping one electron off of the oxygen atom resulted in a positive energy level but still far behind that of gasoline.

Stanley Meyer said he stripped four electrons or more off of the oxygen atom so let us take a look at the reactions as told to us in the patent.
The new reaction to form the water molecule at the 4th energy level is as follows:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 7469.2 kJ/mol are formed yielding 8341.2 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction now is 8341.2-1836 = +6505.2 kJ/mol
5th
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 10090.5 kJ/mol = 10962.5 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is 10962.5-1836= +9126.5 kJ/mol.
6th
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 13326.5 kJ/mol = 14198.5 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is 14198.5-1836= +12362.5 kJ/mol.
Now this is more than 2.54 times the energy content of that of gasoline, and gives a most probable answer to the question of, “How did Stanley Meyer run his 1.6L engine with an hho production rate of only 7L/min.?” For you still have two more electrons to strip off.

What is your take on the math of the process? Am I right or wrong in your view? This assumes the worste case of the reaction, if done any other way will give higher energy yeilds. For what it all comes down to is energy flux density in this case I measured it in joules per mole. @ Outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 01, 2009, 01:56:27 AM
Quote
Here are the ionization energy levels of oxygen:
• 1st 1313.9 kJ/mol
• 2nd 3388.3 kJ/mol
• 3rd 5300.5 kJ/mol
• 4th 7469.2 kJ/mol
• 5th 10909.5 kJ/mol
• 6th 13326.5 kJ/mol
• 7th 71330.0 kJ/mol
• 8th 84078.0 kJ/mol
Now let us take a look at the reaction to break and form the water molecule under normal conditions.
4 H-O 459 kJ/mol bonds are broken taking 1836 kJ/mol to do so.
2 H-H 436 kJ/mol bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 498 kJ/mol are formed yielding 1370 kJ/mol.

This is why all scientist say it takes more energy to break the bonds of water than you get from combining them, for the net sum of the reaction is negative, 1370-1836 = -466 kJ/mol.

Now the new reactions after the GP has stripped the electrons off of the oxygen atom are known as ionic reactions. Let’s take a look at the 1st energy level of 1313.9 kJ/mol.

The new reaction to form the water molecule 1st energy level:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 1313.9 kJ/mol are formed yielding 2185.9 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is now positive 2185.9-1836 = +349.9 kJ/mol, so now we are getting more energy out than in. To give the energy level a bench mark for comparison the energy content of gasoline is +4864 kJ/mol. So only striping one electron off of the oxygen atom resulted in a positive energy level but still far behind that of gasoline.

Stanley Meyer said he stripped four electrons or more off of the oxygen atom so let us take a look at the reactions as told to us in the patent.
The new reaction to form the water molecule at the 4th energy level is as follows:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 7469.2 kJ/mol are formed yielding 8341.2 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction now is 8341.2-1836 = +6505.2 kJ/mol
5th
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 10090.5 kJ/mol = 10962.5 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is 10962.5-1836= +9126.5 kJ/mol.
6th
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 13326.5 kJ/mol = 14198.5 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is 14198.5-1836= +12362.5 kJ/mol.
Now this is more than 2.54 times the energy content of that of gasoline, and gives a most probable answer to the question of, “How did Stanley Meyer run his 1.6L engine with an hho production rate of only 7L/min.?” For you still have two more electrons to strip off.

What is your take on the math of the process? Am I right or wrong in your view? This assumes the worste case of the reaction, if done any other way will give higher energy yeilds. For what it all comes down to is energy flux density in this case I measured it in joules per mole. @ Outlawstc

i love it.. thank you very much for your insight.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on April 01, 2009, 02:11:00 AM
Well
The two of you are GREAT!!

Thank you for taking the time to share your Knowledge [

Outlawstc
 yes when you know how ,you can recognize the science,when you don't,its like another language

The info you two have shared is breaking the language barrier

THANKS
Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 01, 2009, 02:16:36 AM
Quote
The new reaction to form the water molecule 1st energy level:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 1313.9 kJ/mol are formed yielding 2185.9 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction is now positive 2185.9-1836 = +349.9 kJ/mol, so now we are getting more energy out than in. To give the energy level a bench mark for comparison the energy content of gasoline is +4864 kJ/mol. So only striping one electron off of the oxygen atom resulted in a positive energy level but still far behind that of gasoline.


i am gonna make a sugestion of change for words on a specific part.. "more energy then you put in"  thats not tru in a weird sense.. the reason you can separate them at such a high rate is the duality of nature it self.. while +1000 and -1000 may appear to have zero current they are really just trading off light and electrons in resonance (balance).. so it appears to be 0..the duality is it causes the atoms to want to go the other direction of the high voltage.. because opposite attract. 

the search for the truth shall bring you one step closer to clarity and one step away from distortion. it will also take you one step closer to intuitive instincts and also take you one step away from ignorance at the same time hey its duality vice versa!!

see my point where this explains overunity thats how voltage performs work its really reflecting another output at the same time. and that reflection of voltage performing work is 180 from what its going lol. its vice versa
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 01, 2009, 02:56:02 AM
Yes you are right, but I am really talking in the terms in which the science guys can understand it. The energy found here is also the same energy found in a lightining storm, both you and I seem to know that. But the new form of what I like to call, "Tobacco Scientist," keep fighting this information. They fight it will Dr. Faraday electronlysis when it is like comparing apples to oranges. I sat down with a bunch of them and the question I gave to them was, "How does a lightining storm produce electricty?' They couldn't answer that question, and you and I know that is where this technology has it's roots. Mother nature has been showing us the way the whole time, even the way our very own bodies work is part of this technology, for it is mother natures way to make and sustain life. Took me a long time to learn that lesson.

The reason I said it's just changing the atmospher is we do it all the time. Any time you see and engine with a blower or turbo on it, or water/mist/methonal or nitrus oxide you are seeing changes being made to the atmospher to improove the engines performance. It is the same reason why an hho making device added on will also improve performance for blowers also take energy to run them and they do close to the same thing and that is adding in more O2. So anyone that reads this from this point on and says the hho devices do nothing, is siding with the new form of tobacco science guys. For now you know how to compare apples with apples, blowers and hho devices. When comparing them to turbos one can let the cars vacuum perform work on the hho device thus cutting down the amp usage to create the same about of hho gases, carbid tip and myself proved that one. But you will run into a runaway boil off of the water as the temps get higher for lowering the pressure also lowers the boiling point of water.

I'm going to enjoy breaking the chains of energy enslavement,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 03, 2009, 07:01:27 AM
you and me both lol .   maybe they can understand this???


cheers
outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 03, 2009, 09:35:05 AM
another good visual
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 04, 2009, 04:59:48 AM
ponder on this players.. of the game called life...which leads great responsibility..     study what crystal defects are and what they do.. realize silicon and snow are both defects... understand light is positve potential while electrons are negative.. realize what a black solar panel is doing..  i think this is the black solar panel vice versa. and the cold process.. realize cold is related to vacuum states..

cheers
outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: CrazyEwok on April 06, 2009, 06:41:09 AM
i'm not even going to dignify your "GOD" theory with an answer...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 07, 2009, 06:21:05 AM
lol most ignorant closed minded that cant search for truth wouldn't even give it a chance.. just a theory thrown out there.. based off a couple factors that weigh possibility.. for instant stainless steels properties.. you most likely don't even know what its composition is.. you most likely don't know it has silcon in it.. you most likely didn't know that it has been forced to be a defect due to mechanical stress during it cold rolled process in manufacturing.. you most likely also don't realize the possible factors that alone creates.. you don't know that light is the positive in electric.. and that the ignorant still think electric is only produced from the current of electrons moving in one direction.. you don't realize that snow itself is a crystal defect.. you don't know that crystal defects are like mirrors that can multiply light.. you probably still believe einstein's equation is a fixed constant just like everyone else.. even though they admit light slows down when going threw glass.. you probably still don't know the difference between cold process and hot.. nor vacuum state or expansion.. you probably can even see how a solar panel is the hot process for solar.. you probably don't even know what a solar panel consist of in manufacturing.. hmm silcon wafer??? oh with a sheet of glass on top.. stephen meyers just points out stainless's semiconducting propertiesand his studies in it for no important reasons in his radio blogs..  and speaks of all the little triangles it forms.. you probly dont know triangles can form hexagons on a surface.. you probably dont relize a snow flake is a hexagon and how that can pertain to it... you probly didnt know that stainless is chemicaly inert and likes to keep a skin of ozone on it.. oh which is positively charged oxygen (missing electrons).. so i would have to say on a educated guess based on the search for the TRUTH and not just a simple throw it out and not dignify the "GOD" would be more appropriate. since you dont even know why snow is white (high energy state reflecting all light) another good question by mr stephen meyers.. so my theory is based of snow high mirroring effect to light and MULTIPLYING..  of posiitve energy happen on a low frequency and its cold VACUUM state MIGHT allow a positive potenitial to be established on a isolated platform.... remember free energy is real and for everything in life there's a right way and a wrong way. seems for electric the hot process is all we use and its the versa. so now that you didnt give a chance to dignify and stuck your noes in and gave a negative comment i hope i made you feel stupid.. because a real person of god.. would'nt judge but ask for clairity of ones perspective of thought.. you dont see how overunity and god relate.. your god is the mythology..  mine is vice versa. natural law.. for ever action one trade take place.. you probly cant see how we as a population can even hold up to one of the first pages in the bible.   chapter 1: 26  "and god said let us make man in our own image after are likeness: and let him have DOMINON over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the ai, and over everything that moveth apon the earth."
we have fallen to quantity and the the wall mart/ sam specials.. all the local can even sell there cattle.. and have replaced them with high quantity poor quality high rollers behind the scene.. .. if that were not tru we would be in the shoes we are now.. last but not least stans meyers trademark logo JOB38: 22-23
22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble,for days of war and battle?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: CrazyEwok on April 07, 2009, 07:46:29 AM
I will not get into a discussion about religion on a science board. BUT i never said anything about the validity of your idea i simply said that your use of GOD either implies that you believe it is the be all and end all way... not slightly ignorant at all... or that it is holy and is greater than man kind... still not slightly ignorant at all... so take your ignorant stick and point it somewhere else... Oh BTW when light hits crystals it slows down and changes direction... you still loose some of the energy... there has been plenty of research into it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 07, 2009, 08:48:42 AM
Quote
i'm not even going to dignify your "GOD" theory with an answer..

lol gods kingdom isnt just this little one planet my friend.. without sun theres no life. without earth theres no life  its vice versa.. .... its funny how they call the bible the holy bible.. while positve light energy are called holes.. its funny how the bible refer to being pure (neutral).. its funny how you can see how different charged substances effect peoples lifes.. such as alcohol which is a acid (neg) make people feel weighted down on this neutral planet.. its funny how people during the time of atlantis lived to be over 200 years old. they must of been taking synthetic over the counter cures to huh? lol

Quote
use of GOD either implies that you believe it is the be all and end all way... not slightly ignorant at all... or that it is holy and is greater than man kind... still not slightly ignorant at all

"or that it is holy and is greater than man kind."  nothin could ever be bigger then man kind not even god powers huh..  not the powers that make earth spin and support life.. never.  light isnt a need for man we could live in the dark.. we dont need plants.  they dont need energy from god to grow

stan didn't relate this to god on his bussiness logo because he thought it wasnt connected.. never

simple apology wouldnt been strait but u square just like everyone else that cant figure out how to step out side of it.  not implying to anyone else hear just speaking of in population general.. should of just kept your negativity to yourself.. 

Quote
there has been plenty of research into it.

so your telling me people have experimented with the set up i have drawn out?. they used stainless 304.. insulated it from ground.. about 20 by 20 feet? and since its slowing light down and multiplying wouldnt that be a low frequency amplification??? does tesla not say low frequencies have more power??,   and the vacuum cold state.. thats not adding to the vacuum on electrons threw a load? and sunlights radiant light could never be powerful enough to power anything..

they say black solar panel's are not efficient because they don't aborb lower frequencies  it is the hot process and the versa way of makeing them. allways 2 ways to skin a cat.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 07, 2009, 06:35:44 PM
Okay Outlawstc and to all else this concerns,
The only thing anyone reading this thread should be concerned about is building the Gas Processor, injectors, and matching electronics. I left a lot of work to be done for all of you, either get busy building or shut up. I do not need anyone trying to tell me how Stanley Meyer did what he did for I already know the answer and I did the right thing and posted the solution for all of you. Sure it will take some getting use to seeing the math in action and a lot of studying to understand the math, chemistry, and physics concepts.

I didn't learn how Stanley Meyer did what he did by looking at the patents, I learned by looking away from the patents and just taking core concepts. Learning how a lightining storm truly works for starters, learning the full meaning of capacitance, and magentic fields. Learning about Kelvin genarators and Taylor cones. Understanding just what a dielectric is and how they behave in a capacitive set up. Also learning how to add up energy levels, rates of reactions, gas laws, the physical properties of water, and self ionization of water. Learning the nature of the hydronium ion, learn states of matter, the tripple point, and how to read phase diagrams, and the list goes on and on.

In the end I figured out how Stanley Meyer did what he did to use water as a source of fuel, and in doing so I also figured out how Dr. Dingel, Bob Boyce, and others systems work. It has been 11 years since the death of Stanley Meyer, and to the best of my knowlege no one in the whole world has made these mathmatical comparisons of energy content with gasoline & water the way I have. If anyone doesn't understand any part of what I posted then use the internet for what it is best suited for, teaching, and teach yourselves any part you don't understand. The first key thing everyone has to do is learn how to ask and answer question, this is the best example you are ever going to get of how to go about asking and answering questions on your own: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/285.html if after you see this video and you still don't know how to ask and answer questions just quit and find something else to do with your time. For after watching that video and you still don't know how to go about the process of information gathering you will be wasting your time and mine.

I will be honest I am not interested in what you think or how you think it works with concern to the water for fuel technologies. The only thing I am interested in is that you learn the concepts of what I have posted and start becoming energy independent as a result. Right now each and every person reading this should already be putting together ideas of how they can apply this technology to their everyday lives, and building prototypes to do so. If not, what are you doing? waiting for me to put out my prototype so it can be copied when you should be building an understanding of your own? Or are you waiting for an entertainment video of a car running on water when that in itself will be called a fake. The math is proof of concept for it stands alone and follows all the known rules of science. For even someone with diminished capacity can tell that 6k > 5k  and those numbers are the rounded off of the energy levels of gasoline and atomized water+primed air gases(4th level)+recirculated exhaust gases, just as Stanley Meyer tells to do in his patents. I don't want to hear how you think it works for I already know how it works, either you get busy freeing yourselves from energy enslavement or get busy dieing!

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: triffid on April 07, 2009, 06:55:16 PM
I am glad to see this thread is doing so well.I have found a way to pull water out of thin air and hope we can  come up with cars that refuel themselves by pulling water out of the air at night and then using solar heat during the day to pull water out of those crystals.Couple this with recycling the steam that comes out of the tailpipe.You would have a car you never need to refuel.If you other guys work out how to burn water as a fuel.Then these cars have a chance to become reality.Triffid
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Farrah Day on April 07, 2009, 10:16:05 PM
This is getting sad. What the hell are you people on?

Outlaw is now throwing religion into the mix - I guess that is to conveniently fill in the missing bits that his brain can't handle or science seemingly can't explain! 

H2O, maths is not proof of concept. The maths is simply figures from which you are forming your concept.

Proof of concept is having a working unit powering a ICE.... don't think you've got one of these have you?

I know exactly what to think about the likes of Dinkie, Kinesis and Outlaw, but I'm really not sure what to make of you H2O.  Seems to me like your just shouting your mouth off as many have before, making out that you have all the answers, but curiously you seem to expect others to build the unit!  I've heard it all before, people are good at talking the talk - yet to see anyone walk the walk.  And I for one wont be holding my breath while you play with your maths.

What I'd like to know is just where all the power to continually ionise oxygen is coming from in the first place?

Personally, like Meyer before you, I don't for one minute think that you understand the science involved in what your are suggesting, let alone have the electronics know-how to build a proof-of-concept unit.

But don't let that stop you... please, go ahead and prove me wrong!

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 07, 2009, 10:42:43 PM
This is getting sad. What the hell are you people on?

Outlaw is now throwing religion into the mix - I guess that is to conveniently fill in the missing bits that his brain can't handle or science seemingly can't explain! 

H2O, maths is not proof of concept. The maths is simply figures from which you are forming your concept.

Proof of concept is having a working unit powering a ICE.... don't think you've got one of these have you?

I know exactly what to think about the likes of Dinkie. Kinesis and Outlaw, but I'm really not sure what to make of you H2O.  Seems to me like your just shouting your mouth off as many have before, making out that you have all the answers, but curiously you seem to expect others to build the unit!  I've heard it all before, people are good at talking the talk - yet to see anyone walk the walk.  And I for one wont be holding my breath while you play with your maths.

What I'd like to know is just where all the power to continually ionise oxygen is coming from in the first place?

Personally, like Meyer, I don't for one minute think that you understand the science involved in what your are suggesting, let alone have the electronics know-how to build a proof-of-concept unit.

But don't let that stop you... please, go ahead and prove me wrong!



No. You teach yourself look up and fully understand a corona discharge and that in itself will answer your question, if not, quit. Since you couldn't answer your own question after I posted the video, I think you should just give up and/or quit. I have, more than anyone elses post on this site, looked at your post more than any others. Just like you towards me, I couldn't make you out, what was your goals, what where your asperations, what drives you to write ???

And again, No! You prove me wrong! For that forces you to go over all the math and comparisons made of my research on the water for fuel technology. Make no misstake about it, you come over here and challange me your going to have to do it with the methods of science. Your going to have to ask yourself and answer the very same questions I ask myself, and this question is most important. "How did Stanley Meyer run a 1.6L aluminium engine with an hho production rate of 7L/min.?" It is that question that lies at the heart of me figuring out how Stanley Meyer did what he did. Now you answer this question as best as you can if you find yourself unable to answer the question then quit and find something else to do with your life for you are wasting my time as with the time of others forced to read your post due to trying to figure you out >:(.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 08, 2009, 03:21:02 AM
Quote
What I'd like to know is just where all the power to continually ionise oxygen is coming from in the first place?

see my mind is like legos in side.. i can SEE what i build.. i can see its reactions i can see displacements.. i can see deflection.. my mind is fully capable of understand natural forces.
im gonna give you 2 answers and you will still call me crazy..

stans delflection occurs in the alternator system due the physical rotation energy of the alternator version.  it can consume up to 8 hp i would say at the most.. it is creating what we would call a circuit.. itself.. since its producing gas, the gas is being burnt, that cause's the mechanical rotation force which is then returning back to production.. so theres a loop of energy recycling there.. stans cell is creating a ANTI GRAVITY atmosphere between excitors.. electrons have the fall feeling toward the positive while positve has a feeling of falling toward the negative.. it is a duality force in action.. to understand duality force you got to know how time works,... its all relative. 

as for the transformer version it is capable of the deflection of electrons and the electron bounce phenomenon due to the type of charge going threw the primary winding.. it is using turbulent amps.. the ontly type you probly understand.. since non turbulent isnt defined yet? i think we should call them outlaws since these amps seem to  not exist..   see i have found the light.. i know how this world works.. you cant see how the tradewinds at the equator  resemble how stans low and high volts(pressure) can interact as a bi direction trade.. you cant see what makes a hurricanne occur and how a hurricane is like turbulent amps in a wire.. im as crazy as they come farrah day.. i hang out with my wang out.. and theres nothin better in life then finding the light.

i understand this tech so well i see how it reacts with human nature.. we live on the northern hemisphere.. sine the matter of earth has a positve charge on this side all the electrons tend to condense in the northern hemisphere.. they get denser the further north u go from the equator.. ever wounder why it seems like all the complexity seems to be in the north? ever wounder why snow flakes become more complex as you go north?  ever wounder why colors are more vivid in the southern hemisphere? look at the birds and animals.. how come we dont have them here? theres less electrons in the southern hemisphere since it repels them .. the earth is naturaly holding the charge plants roots want.. and they are getting way more light..so they grow quicker.. man did you hear about that war australia was in? nope because theres no such talk of that stuff down there.   
now ask your self what the pyramids got to do with all this.. ask your self what the point of all the gold in them was.. ask why they are built at 30deg north lat and 30 deg. longitude..  ask why there linear placement resembles trade winds curve.. ask why are planet is slowly loosing its tilt.. could the pyramids charges of kept the earth in a seasonal resonance?  does there linear placement determine the speed of earths rotation??/ im crazy dont listen to my jargon. lol  this brain of mine i just dont know how it comes to clairty maybe its because i dont follow all the studies that contradict this tech.. hmm or maybe i have a little einstien in me??? this tech has shown me anti gravity, possibilities to quantum mechanics. and overunity as a civilization.. where everybodys  rich.. and the rich i speak of isnt money.. but the real gold knowledge..  look up in the sky.. we rich.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: johnbostick on April 08, 2009, 05:13:20 AM
Outlaw,  ;D
I don't think there could be anyway farrah days could argue against that logic.  ;D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Farrah Day on April 08, 2009, 07:41:20 PM
Well H2O, I've now concluded that you're just as misguided as most of the others around here - what a lot of nonsense you talk!

Why would I have to prove you wrong?

I didn't find Meyer very credible, I find you less so. Proof is in the pudding, not the recipe. Once you have a working model you can then put an end to any speculation and skepticism. I, or anyone else does not need to prove you wrong, you simply need to prove yourself right, by building a working model.  Afterall, you made a point of coming over here shouting about how you know how to do it - it's for you to back up you claims, not for us to disprove you. Besides you haven't actually got anything to disprove yet have you... it's all just talk!

I say again, you have nothing but theories until you put your ideas into practise and build a working - proof of concept - model.  And again, where is all the energy to continually ionise oxygen coming from in the first place? 

And do you really expect an oxygen ion missing half a dozen electrons to react with a hydrogen ion? If so how?  Do you expect to get water as a by-product? If so, how?

Exactly what chemical reaction do you expect to get from heavily ionised oxygen and hydrogen? How can they even react?

I don't think you've really thought this through. Gases ionised to extremes won't react as normal, they need too many electrons to stabilise. Like Meyer before you, it all sounds good, but the science simply does not add up!

Outlaw sweetie, has the doctor changed your medication by any chance... because you seem to be tripping on something?

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 08, 2009, 08:05:42 PM
Well H2O, I've now concluded that you're just as misguided as most of the others around here - what a lot of nonsense you talk!

Why would I have to prove you wrong?

I didn't find Meyer very credible, I find you less so. Proof is in the pudding, not the recipe. Once you have a working model you can then put an end to any speculation and skepticism. I, or anyone else does not need to prove you wrong, you simply need to prove yourself right, by building a working model.  Afterall, you made a point of coming over here shouting about how you know how to do it - it's for you to back up you claims, not for us to disprove you. Besides you haven't actually got anything to disprove yet have you... it's all just talk!

I say again, you have nothing but theories until you put your ideas into practise and build a working - proof of concept - model.  And again, where is all the energy to continually ionise oxygen coming from in the first place? 

And do you really expect an oxygen ion missing half a dozen electrons to react with a hydrogen ion? If so how?  Do you expect to get water as a by-product? If so, how?

Exactly what chemical reaction do you expect to get from heavily ionised oxygen and hydrogen? How can they even react?

I don't think you've really thought this through. Gases ionised to extremes won't react as normal, they need too many electrons to stabilise. Like Meyer before you, it all sounds good, but the science simply does not add up!

Outlaw sweetie, has the doctor changed your medication by any chance... because you seem to be tripping on something?



I can tell you have no idea how speech and debates work, my argument is already out, now the burden of proof lies with you since you are the one with the alternative point of view.

Where is the answer to the question? That one is a bit to hard for you? Like I said before you are just a waste of my time since you can't speak in terms of science. These are ionic reactions, but again you have no knowledge of what that is so it's pointless to talk to you. You still didn't answer your own question after I gave you a hit as to where to find the answer learning what a corona discharge is and how it works every aspect of it.

You are not smart enough to take on the likes of me so go call on some of your butt bodies to help you out, or take the easy way out and quit. For what is your purpose here anyway? What drives you to say and write the things you do? Is it defending your honor? Is it you have a better way of reaching energy independence, but have opt to keep that information all to yourself? Why are you here?

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Digits on April 08, 2009, 08:23:43 PM
Hey Mr Fara day

If you dont like the thread leave it What H2O have shown us is exactly the truth I have run the maths with a few chemical engenners and it is viable indeed.
Yes in theory it is easy so we are in the processe of developing a working prototype but this, like all good things take time.
I wil be happy to prove you and all critisizing clowns wrong,but at the moment I dont have a prototype working and you my dear friend can not prove that the maths is wrong, now can you?
So we are in the same boat

So either contribute to the thread or go away, but just please check weekly to view our first fuits,and then appologize.

Thanks Digits
javascript:void(0);


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 08, 2009, 08:36:44 PM
i will answer for you h20

In electricity, a corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid surrounding a conductor, which occurs when the potential gradient (the strength of the electric field) exceeds a certain value, but conditions are insufficient to cause complete electrical breakdown or arcing

references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge

outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 08, 2009, 08:57:02 PM
i wrote this on the 1st..
tell me what you think.. it explains where overunity is in humanity. and in a complex sense where it comes from in free power.

For every question there’s an answer, for every answer there’s a question there the same in relation but there are two differences involved to get action, distortion and clarity. When you are born, distortion of our reality is at its highest. Its simple times of life, the beginning... the mind is not full of mixed signals created from experience that happens in time... its blind. As we go through life we find clarity in many things and it gives us a sense of enlightenment and or a sense of troubles... distortions and clarity can create gain working in opposition to each other. The gain is wisdom and the truth. One step forward towards the question will in return, bring you one step closer to the truth. Hey it may be a bumpy road but its builds character. What shows the truth? Reflection. They make us walk in circles now days, surrounded by nothing but distortion. Some of us have intuition gods people... some have ignorance the devils infantry. There is so much truth in this .if you don’t understand it read it again and again. Since each time you read it, it shall bring you one step closer to clarity and one step away from distortion, at the same relative time it will bring you one step closer to intuitive instincts and one step away from ignorance at the same time hey its duality vice versa!! Life has too many variables and complexities to predict and prepare ahead of the time in most cases... so the only thing you can do is BE prepare for the ride 24/7... And in the present time of relativity it seems like it might get ruff. So hold on tight and don’t shit yourself. The truth is I’m as real as they come these days haha... what does your intuition say? I say bitch don’t judge!!! see it’s vice versa hahaha

this is where free unlimited power comes from.. and it is also how us people of difference can also be overunity..
the age of Aquarius is rolling in (that water barrer) and the exit of the age of the Pisces (the fish (give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime) is this coinincidence.. or destiny? "god don't play dice with the universe" albert einstein..


outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 08, 2009, 09:34:51 PM
i will answer for you h20

In electricity, a corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid surrounding a conductor, which occurs when the potential gradient (the strength of the electric field) exceeds a certain value, but conditions are insufficient to cause complete electrical breakdown or arcing

references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge

outlawstc

That is correct but there is more to it. When put into a capcitive field every atom on the suface of the the two plates is working independently and together at the same time. For we all know that the capacitive field always hits perpendicular to the surface of the capacitors plates. You can see these atoms working together in this MIT video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQvXrxrqshk. Now to add up the energies one would have to add up all the atoms on the surface using Avogadro's number and a lot of high level math to solve all of the energy being expended. But we all have seen lighining storms in action and that is proof of the high energy yeilds by such a device. I didn't really expect that guy that stole a great mans name to even come close to answering the question, for that takes 18 months of physics to figure out completely and fully a graduate class tacking on yet another year. I wanted him to see just how out matched he was in trying to pick a fight with me.

I'd bet he wont even thank you for answering his own question that he had.

Energy independence is now ours for the taking,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 08, 2009, 10:11:42 PM
nope there will be no thank you because that person is in the devils infantry(ignorant) i like the video.. theres one thing differing there h20. theres only one excitor.. i think with a positve and neg right next to each other they create 4 times the strength off oppostion for defecting electrons off h2o.. only if you know how to keep the charges happy in there bifilar wind on a inductor.. and that has to do with resonance and balance involving opposite charges sitting next to each other on a core.. they attract so much i think they would like to remain on the choke rather then crossing a gap.. after thats accompished i think they do trade of pos and negative charge.. but its happening on a 1/1 ratio so it appears neutral.. but really isnt in a sence of trade.. when we read amps in todays electric it is how many electrons pass a given point.. but the electrons that they are acounting for are the exsess turbulent ones.. the only ones that are readable with todays meters. the thing i posted that  i said i wrote on the 1st, i sent it to john hutchinson and got a reply.. he said loved it thank you great words.. so in my mind to have someone of that credibility write back to somethin i wrote pertaining to free energy.. farrahday your just a pimple on the butt. and your words could never amount to 6 words said by the guy who antigravity is being named after.. you know, the hutchinson effect.


outlawstc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 08, 2009, 10:13:11 PM
But I would like to add to that, for I am a homble man. If anyone finds mistakes in anything I have done show me and I will correct myself for I am not error proof. At first I made a mistake with the energy level of gasoline for I forgot to write the last digit and had 495k J/mol for the energy level of gasoline, someone was nice enough to point out that mistake and I corrected it. And then my numbers made since with what Stanley Meyer was saying when he spoke of stripping 4 or more electrons off of the oxygen atom for it was at the fourth energy level that water for fuel surpassed the energy content of gasoline. That should give everyone an example of what a simple mistake can do, I said I was sorry to the group and corrected my mistake and move on. For it is not our thoughts that define us but our actions that we chose to act on with our thoughts. For if I made any mistakes it won't prevent the Gas Processor from working.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Farrah Day on April 09, 2009, 12:46:52 AM
H2O, I see now that you are at heart just another illiterate wannabe.

Quote
You are not smart enough to take on the likes of me so go call on some of your butt bodies to help you out, or take the easy way out and quit

You can't be serious - you're conversing with a first class muppet like Outlaw and you think I'm not smart enough to see right through your nonsense. Outlaw copies and pastes from Wikipedia and you're impressed!! It's laughable, you might be able to fool 99% of the idiots around here, but I see you as just a self important smartass, minus the 'smart'. If you had any education in science you would see the flaws in your theories without me having to point them out. You reaaly don't have a clue about what you're talking about do you?

No H2O, you're just another wannabe enjoying the limelight. You rank right in there with Outlaw, Dankie, Kineses, Spewing and the other illiterate retards that make a mockery of these forums by bringing the level of intelligence down to the gutter.

There is no one around here capable of intelligent conversation because the general level of ignorance and foul language is so great it has driven them away. This and most of the other similar forums have been killed off by stupid people with single figure IQ's, impossibly low mental ages and with no background in science that continually spout absolute garbage.

This forum will be dead in weeks without the input of intelligent people, and even the ignorant morons will get tired of bullshitting each other very quickly.

I could look in on here in 5 years time and you'll still be talking about how you know it all works, but you'll still be doing a few sums and still won't have proof of concept. But don't worry, the uneducated and niave such as Digits and Ramset will still have their misplaced faith in you because they can't think for themselves and tend to mindlessly follow like sheep, hoping they're on to a good thing. You might have them fooled into thinking you know what you're talking about, but not me matey!

This is no longer a science forum, it's a fantasy forum for brainless tosspots, losers and now, as it seems in the case of Outlaw, religious nutcases!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 09, 2009, 01:08:48 AM
Don't anyone answer him for all he is trying to do is fill this thread up full of his BS so anyone looking into it will not get to the good stuff due to filtering through his endless ranting. And most importantly he didn't answer even one question. So we must ignor him to the max, okay everyone treat him as you would these free energy advertisings ;D

Thanks for all of your cooperation in these matters

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on April 09, 2009, 01:18:07 AM
Great to see you around Farrah ... I dont agree with all you said , but do agree with some of it .

Yeah this forum sucks now , its just a shithole , I feel like cursing @ everybody  .... O yeah I remember , thats just what I did for the last few weeks , curse and insult people ., I guess this site does has its appeal after all... best part is you cant ever get banned :)






I
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on April 09, 2009, 01:22:31 AM
dankie
its just like the real world ,the only way you get banned is in a pine box

Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 09, 2009, 01:43:26 AM
Great to see you around Farrah ... I dont agree with all you said , but do agree with some of it .

Yeah this forum sucks now , its just a shithole , I feel like cursing @ everybody  .... O yeah I remember , thats just what I did for the last few weeks , curse and insult people ., I guess this site does has its appeal after all... best part is you cant ever get banned

And to you Dankie I owe you an apology for the 430F(FR) wire is needed if you are going to build the water fuel capacitor with spacings between 0.060 - 0.010 inches. That part you couldn't answer for me, but in the end the answer to the question of what is it's purpose was answered.
So for what it's worth I'm sorry.

First type of VIC transformer

Voltage Intensifier Circuit (60) of Figure (3-22) (Memo WFC 422 DA) as to Figure (1-1)
(Memo WFC 420) and Voltage Intensifier Circuit (620) of Figure (7-1) are specifically designed to
restrict amp flow during Programmable Pulsing Operations (49a xxx 49n) but in different
operational modes: VIC voltage circuit (60) utilizes copper wire-wrap to form Resonant Charging
Chokes (56/62) of Figure (3-22) in conjunction with Switching Diode (55) to encourage and make
use of "Electron Bounce" phenomena (700) of Figure (7-9) to help promote Step Charging Effect
(628) of Figure (7-7) by preventing electrical discharge of Resonant Cavity (140 - 170) since
Blocking Diode functions as an "Open" switch during Pulse Off-time; whereas,

Secound type of VIC transformer


VIC Voltage
Enhancement Circuit
(VIC - VB) (620) of Figure (7-1) incorporates the use of stainless steel wirewrap
coils (614/615) to accomplish the formation of unipolar gated pulse-wave (64a xxx T3 xxx
64n) without experiencing "signal distortion" or "signal degradation" (preventing transformer
ringing during signal propagation) as elevated voltage levels ( - xx Vc- xx Vd - xx Vn) while
allowing the reduction of Capacitor-Gap (Cp) (616) of Figure (7-11) width spacing (57 of Figure 3-
25 ~35 of Figure 6-2) (typically .060 - .010) respectively. as illustrated in Tubular Resonant Cavity
(170) as to Taper Resonant Cavity (620) of Figure (7-1). 


Be honest, did you know there where two types of VIC transformers being used by Stanley Meyer?

I went over this on the other site for anyone else wanting to know more about them.

Best Wishes,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Farrah Day on April 09, 2009, 01:55:59 AM
Well I'm just gonna leave you boys to it - this girl's got better things to be doing than reading through this never ending clap-trap.

H2O in his wisdom - just like Meyer - has it all figured out and has told you all what to do (even though he hasn't yet done it himself) so I assume you'll all have a car running on water in the next few weeks. Just one thing tho', don't hold your breath waiting for him to prove his theories - it might take a while! 

Remember, it's up to you to prove his claims wrong, not for him to prove them right!

Can you imagine taking something to the patent office and when they ask you to show them how it works, you answer by telling them to prove it won't work!!  ???

Oh yes, and check out Corona Discharge as everything will become crystal clear after that  ;D  Yawn...yeh right!

You all have fun now! ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on April 09, 2009, 02:43:25 AM
Its Ok H2opower ... I dont care anymore , Dynodon is stealing all the customers anyways .

Yeah The s/s wire works well ... Transformer part  works like a charm , unlike what people said , and the power consumed is also in the few hunded mA .

So far so good ... I'd like to say a nice Fuck you to all these idiots you see here , expept those I have already forgiven ... Seamonkey was quite annoying

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1027

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1033

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=953

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1082

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=802&start=15

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3119&highlight=#3119


What I will critisized you for H2Opower is how you see the gas processor as the ultimate solution . I never payed much attention to that part as I was simply facinated by the injector concept , you talk about a 125 psi rate , well I say that if you can close that valve and split that water while its in the cavity there you have your psi rate , expanson rate ...

I also believe the "pressure" here plays an imprortant part , I believe is has to do with some sort of energy from the ether  this "dipole exitation" thing  , I will see how far Meyers takes us with this but I really do believe there is a missing link somewhere , something that was covered by all this other stuff , it is a cover for an otherwise NSA banned patent...

Obviously there was some heavy social engineering done with Meyers  , just looking @ the amount of failure rates , but there have been a few diamonds in the rough @ (wfc.org) who have inspired me ,  this technology is still the best and last hope for humanity , this magnetic shit wont get the real stuff done , we need a real answer , we need to power our trucks and tractors 4 cheap , yep , only water will save us ...

Lets get for some energy independance , finally ...



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 09, 2009, 03:17:26 AM
Quote
Be honest, did you know there where two types of VIC transformers being used by Stanley Meyer?

I went over this on the other site for anyone else wanting to know more about them.

the bobbin and the alternator version dankie informed me of long ago.. thier begining designs were a tad off in demension at first but we gain better idea after a visual of the real deal.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kinesisfilms on April 09, 2009, 03:54:40 AM
Kineses

spell it right.

the least your illiterate bashing mindset can do is copy and paste my username correctly.....buzz.

you should learn from your mistakes before you get banned again.

your pathetic.


and dankie......as you have stated the gas processor is not the ultimate solution seeing that it will not run without the vic coil......the vic coil is the ultimate solution.....but without the gas processor you will never get it to run an actual car....nor will you get the 100mpg claim....the gas processor is the second most important thing.......third would be the quenching tubes.

as for farrah day and his complete assurance that we are idiots is quite amusing......if only we could show him the photos of everyones work.......i can't wait for that thread labeled....."the idiots who replicated meyers".....and hopefully this will happen real real real soon.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 09, 2009, 09:11:49 AM
I for one know that the Gas Processor is the most important part of Stanley Meyer's technology for at the end of one of his patents he says it can be used with any type of fuel, and as we have all seen that the Gas Processor can be driven by any high frequency switching type transformer as the MIT video demonstraited. Without the Gas Processor you can get no thermo explosive energy all you will get is 286 kJ/mol or perhapes a bit more if hho is produced. But that is no where near the energy content of gasolines 4k-5k kJ/mol depending on the grade used. Remember it all comes down to energy flux density and water for fuel with the Gas Processor has far more energy content than fossile fuels.

And kinesisfilms please don't talk to him for he is not worth it lets just run right over him for we are all making great progress right now ;) I for one am not going back for road kill ::)

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Phantasm on April 09, 2009, 11:12:34 AM
WOW...

This is really a disheartening read :(

I really gotta say we've got our hearts in the wrong place with all the bickering going on here... There seems to be a lot of egos running a lot of the posts here :\ I thought the prupose of this forum was to AID in the R&D process for these devices.

@h20power

Firstly - A huge thanks to the obvious hours upon hours of research you've done in this area.

I hear what youre saying that the concepts involved with building these devices should be understood by the builders before we attempt to build them - as such, we should do the research and learn the concepts before building.

even if the logic holds for that, I dont think its the right way to go - we can learn by talking about this and reading schematics just as well as we can learn by reading the publications, patents and read up on fundamentals of the science involved here as you have.

My quesitons is - why waste all that time? Youve boiled it all down already - why go through the process again? It just doesnt seem right to come here and release some information and then withold some because its better that we learn for ourselves.

In reality, a lot of discoveries that became the threshold of a big breaktrhough happen by chance anyhow - they happen when people experiment and discover for themselves how things work. Its for this reason that inventors come up with their own verbiage for the concepts theyve indentified that are at play within their devices.

Some of us are inventors - some of us are experimenters, some of us are just interested in alternative energy - the bottom line is, not all of us are capable of investing the time and money to build designs and testing them nedlessly. It IS needless if someone else can speak from experience or from knowldege on the subject thats needed.

You've said that these people are not suited to this field of work if they do not have the resources to invest. Well, frankly, I disagree - everyone who has a heart for helping the planet is useful on this website - Teach them to fish, and they'll teach others for you. If I show your average joe how to build an OU device - even if he doesnt understand it - as long as I'm able to communicate how to replicate the design and what pitfalls/safety issues to watch for - then there's another happy person who can now help their family weather the coming storm.

We really are talking about the lives and well being of humanity when talking about the far reaching implications that renuable alternative energy can afford. Why waste time with all this elitism? I have to strongly agree with those who have said that now is not the time for homework.

(I'm not saying we should disregard the science behind the subject, but instead, bring it front row center into the discussion instead of asking us to sort it out for ourselves)

-

As for the rest of you people being critical of eachother over spelling or being ciritcal of the presentation of arguments... all that is irrelevant - as long as we know what the message is, it is not necessary to criticize the quality.

we all bring different tools to the table here - You may not feel that theyre all useful but, why not see how we can make them useful instead of just saying theyre not suited to research - after all - anyone who makes an honest effort to contribute here can be helpful.

Edit: Almost forgot - Huge props @Farrah Day - I'm with you!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: triffid on April 09, 2009, 01:39:24 PM
In spite of the bickering here,I can still pull water out of thin air and create a system for refueling a water powered car automatically.Now you guys just need to recreate Stanley Meyer's device for pulling water apart.My design could be used to refuel as a car is sitting or running 24/7.Triffid
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on April 09, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
In spite of the bickering here,I can still pull water out of thin air and create a system for refueling a water powered car automatically.Now you guys just need to recreate Stanley Meyer's device for pulling water apart.My design could be used to refuel as a car is sitting or running 24/7.Triffid

Make a video and a guide on how to make your thing .

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Phantasm on April 09, 2009, 03:03:43 PM
Sounds like Triffid could be using a similar setup to whats used in a dehumidifyer to pull water out of the air.

Simply put, a peltier element will work to produce a cold surface for condensation to accumulate..

check this out for some more ideas:

http://www.ecoloblue.com/en/home-office

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Farrah Day on April 09, 2009, 05:46:00 PM
Agreed Phantasm, he has a dehumidifier.

The mystery to me is, why he would want to go to all that trouble when water is so freely available from numerous other sources anyway?

Useful perhaps if you're caught out in the desert, providing of course that you have the means to power it - but then you'd probably want to drink it not put it in your car!

Has it's applications, but frankly I can't see the relevance to powering a car on water, as you'd simply recycle the water emitted.  Furthermore It would likely be just another - and unnecessary - drain on power.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on April 09, 2009, 06:31:50 PM
I for one know that the Gas Processor is the most important part of Stanley Meyer's technology for at the end of one of his patents he says it can be used with any type of fuel, and as we have all seen that the Gas Processor can be driven by any high frequency switching type transformer as the MIT video demonstraited. Without the Gas Processor you can get no thermo explosive energy all you will get is 286 kJ/mol or perhapes a bit more if hho is produced. But that is no where near the energy content of gasolines 4k-5k kJ/mol depending on the grade used. Remember it all comes down to energy flux density and water for fuel with the Gas Processor has far more energy content than fossile fuels.

And kinesisfilms please don't talk to him for he is not worth it lets just run right over him for we are all making great progress right now ;) I for one am not going back for road kill ::)

h2opower

H2opower,

I find your theory dangerously over-simplified., you are not hearing me , you wish to build a VIC , a cell , and a Gas Processor , the VIC is needed for gas production . But I wanna make only a VIC and injector , I believe there is a dipole excitation going on here and a charge that is unaccounted for .

This VIC is meant to go with very small tubes , I have heard rumors that Stan used this VIC on each of his tubes for the cell , every tube had its own VIC , the VIC 6-1 is the best and only VIC stan was bringing into production .

As I have said before , the water goes into the injector and gets blown away in the motor , no laser no leds nothing , all magnetic field stuff , the added power is this charge from the vacuum .





Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 09, 2009, 06:33:22 PM
Now I am going to set this up as an engineering project as a result I will not tell you how to build, construct, and/or design your projects if you so choose to make them. The idea is simple, to get as many different models as possible that all work. You will be shown where the power truly comes from and how everything works for the water fuel injector system, not the WFC in use with the gasous type injectors. Read them as a set of rules to follow, anyway you see fit on how to apply what you have read is up to you.

Again I stress that this is to be a engineering type project, the full build of the design shall come from the individual and/or teams that want to work together on it. And most important of all is to have fun ;D.

Enjoy: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-7.html#post47874

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained.html

Hi Phantasm,
On this site I go over many different things about Stanley Meyer's patents & technology and my reasons for setting it up as an engineering type project is for the best. For if any of you don't know this already one of my designs was blocked from being made, more than likely by those that don't want this technology to see the light of day. I am just one man and as they have shown me my ideas can be blocked, but blocking everyones ideas from the internet is impossible, for one of us is bound to make it through the net. Plus as I stated just building it is not enough you have to understand it. For when it malfuctions how are you going to fix it? Going to take it to the dealership to have it fixed? Not! Going to search me out and demad that I come over there and fix it for you? Not! Or how about just build a whole new one and throw away the one that stopped working? Big time Not! For starters the whole set up should cost the individual somewhere between $2500-$3000 US or more. Someone I know got a quote on the machining the VIC transformer of $400 each and for the a four cylander car that should require 6 VIC transformers to be built costing $2400. Now if you build the transformers yourself the cost is a fraction of that cost, but the parallel bonded or bifilar wire is also costly and there seems to be know what around that. Then add in the cost of building the Gas Processor say $1600, and then this injectors $400 each or more. These are just cost that I am getting someone out there can beat these cost, and if the rule holds someone out there can build all of this better than I can.

But if I just post all of my designs and circuits no one will even try to build it better for they will just copy and paste, leading to being blocked when those people protecting their interest come to stop the technology for all they would have to do is find a weak point in my designs and take down the whole project. Sure, like you, I see the storm on the horizon, but I also know that just copying is not the answer, for this storm is geared to kill an estimated 4 billion people for that is what "they" want. What I am really waiting on is for people from all walks of life to start showing me, and the world, what they are coming up with as a solution to the engineering problem at hand. I have seen just two designs besides my own, and heard of two more being built by Dankie's team and Kinisfilm's team so that makes five totally different designs that more than likely will all work. That is why I say either get busy designing or get busy dieing for like it or not that is the choices you have been given.

Best of luck to us all,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on April 09, 2009, 07:13:23 PM
H20 is right , H20 is a builder .

H20power , I can help you reduce your costs , its not really that bad  :)

This is an engineering challenge , the more people doing their variations the better , but the problem is its mostly just bullshitters here and patent thieves ...

Mostly "imaginary" experimenters that only have 200$ that they will ever spend , close to the tent city ... Or these silent Geniuses types , who only take a few bits and replicate it in secret *cough* 2(WFC.ORG)iM CURIOUS If this is really whats left out there ... They are a few exeptions ofc who are trying their best , but sometimes trying your best on something stupid is actually bad ...







Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kinesisfilms on April 09, 2009, 07:41:21 PM
once again...something is not right here......Phantasm and Farrahday might be one in the same.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 09, 2009, 08:07:51 PM
Hi Dankie,
Those are worste case possibilities, the Gas Processor is costing me around $750 to build and I'm okay with that for now. Since I make the VIC transformers myself the cost of making them is way down for I don't have to pay someone $60-$75 per/hour to machine them for me. The electronics are about $60, and the injectors I am still working on, but I am not doing it like Stanley Meyer's at all, but I am following all the rules and as a result staying within 14% of the patent so no one can block me with patent stealing for I intend on riding Stanley Meyer's patent since it has expired. Stanley Meyer did all the hard work of getting it patented so why should I try and jump through the same hoops he did, when I could just use his patent and be safe.
The design that got blocked was outside of Stanley Meyer's patent protection and got blocked quickly as a result. I wont make that same mistake twice and vow to stay within 14% of the patent.
For anyone wanting to know it is this tube that got blocked from being made:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-9.html#post51165
And caused me to take the whole design back to the drawing board, sort of like taking a medical pill back to formula, something know one wants to hear let alone do, and it increased the cost 277% :'(. But now I learned my lesson and things are going smoothly again. :)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Outlawstc on April 09, 2009, 10:45:56 PM
its obvious because he allways has one flaw.. fancying himself or herself in his or her comments  to his or her other screen names.. i just laugh.. but i feel bad because its like one step backwards when the newbs  reads it.. puts there minds in a catch 22. dont know who is write since its getting distorted.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Phantasm on April 09, 2009, 10:48:29 PM
once again...something is not right here......Phantasm and Farrahday might be one in the same.

I get that you guys have a lot of trouble with people being myschievious here and being that there's no way to prove or disprove anything in this regard, I suppose you can believe what you will

I only hope that you can still be critical of the message independently of being critical of the messenger

Thanks,
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on April 09, 2009, 10:57:40 PM
I get that you guys have a lot of trouble with people being myschievious here and being that there's no way to prove or disprove anything in this regard, I suppose you can believe what you will

I only hope that you can still be critical of the message independently of being critical of the messenger

Thanks,
Not another annoying "smooth talker" , theres enough of you around here .

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Gpssonar on April 10, 2009, 12:14:46 AM
Hi! H20power, I am new to this forum. I've been reading several forums for the last year or so on Stan Meyers and about anything i could research about him and his work. I never realy wanted to join a forum until i started reading this thread for i find it very interesting. I have been working on this for over a year now. And like most people im getting no where with it. I Think you show a new outlook on the way it should be built and work. I intend on putting your ideas and math to good use (for it all adds up). I hope you and everyone welcomes me here for i may need help from time to time......I am a Machinest by trade and i am willing to help out in any way i can in that feild of work..

Thanks,
Gpssonar
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Farrah Day on April 10, 2009, 02:03:25 AM
See what you're up against Phantasm?

Everytime someone tries to bring things into the real world they accuse that person of being a rebel: You are me, I am Buzz,  Buzz is someone else.... what!

Trying to bring sanity to the thread is like trying to teach Einstein to be stupid - it's just not going to happen.

Trying to initiate intelligent conversation is pointless as there are no intelligent people to converse with - you must surely realise this by now, it's just not going to happen!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: johnbostick on April 10, 2009, 08:20:12 AM
H2OPower,
I am also new to this subject but have duplicated the VIC Voltage Enhancement Circuit. I was able to do that because of such a specific description of it in the tech brief.  I find this ionazation to be fascinating yet extremely confusing as I am not formally educated but am very willing to learn.  If you were a new student to this theory what would be the basics that you would want to familiarize yourself with? I do need a starting point.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 10, 2009, 08:22:45 AM
Hi! H20power, I am new to this forum. I've been reading several forums for the last year or so on Stan Meyers and about anything i could research about him and his work. I never realy wanted to join a forum until i started reading this thread for i find it very interesting. I have been working on this for over a year now. And like most people im getting no where with it. I Think you show a new outlook on the way it should be built and work. I intend on putting your ideas and math to good use (for it all adds up). I hope you and everyone welcomes me here for i may need help from time to time......I am a Machinest by trade and i am willing to help out in any way i can in that feild of work..

Thanks,
Gpssonar

Welcome Gpssonar,
Hope everyone treats you well on this form and welcome to the war.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: kinesisfilms on April 10, 2009, 08:30:30 AM
yes! and now that john has duplicated the vic all that is left to do would be the creation of the gas processor since the gas processor uses the vic to create it's votlage field in between it's anode and cathode.

we should becoming together soon.

another person of skill and help is our friend donald.......he might be able to produce your gas processor for a much much cheaper price than 750 dollars.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 10, 2009, 08:55:58 AM
Hi kinesisfilms,
That is the total cost for all the LEDs plus needed resistors, gaskets and sealing rings, nuts and bolts, EEC, and all of the electrical connections plus shipping cost that go with the Gas Processor. Like I said I am fine with it for now, meaning when I get a lathe big enough I will make the thing myself, lol. But I do like the machinist I am currently working with for his is a good man.

I wanted to explain how the injectors work here but I think I will just keep that on the other forum. For the dogs are out filling this thread with page after page of BS now. But I did what I set out to do and that was to let people see some math and science to go along with Stanley Meyers work for a change. I just hope that as many as possible start breaking the chains of energy enslavement.

Best Regards,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Farrah Day on April 10, 2009, 05:48:23 PM
People always see me as a negative and disruptive influence, and that may be so, but it's only down to the fact that no one seems to be capable of actually thinking for themselves.  I'm actually as intrigued by this subject as anyone else, it's just that I'm well grounded and don't live in a fantasy world like many here seem to. I also find it hard to continually tolerate nonsense posted by idiots.

The biggest thing here that makes no sense to me, is why anyone would at this stage be interested in building the gas processor in the first place. It's akin to fitting a supercharger on a car that as yet has no engine!

Surely the gas processor is of absolutely no use until someone firstly recreates Meyers method of high voltage, low current electrolysis - the super-efficient dissociation of water!

Perhaps it's just me, but wouldn't it seem far more logical to start from the beginning and overcome the initial and basic problem with Meyer's gas production, before worrying about how to energise the resulting gas.

Come on, is anyone actually making a substantial amount of hydroxy from a WFC at very low power??

I started a thread about the 'dissociation of the water molecule', because that's where it all starts from, that's the key to everything, but it seems people are just not interested in sorting out the basics. Everyone is trying to run before they have learned to walk, they want the cake but can't be bothered to bake it - it's just crazy!

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie on April 10, 2009, 05:53:12 PM
H20power

I agree with John , we need a better starting point that your little circle thing . That 1000$ thing can be replaced by an inexpensive tiny piece of metal .

,what leds? , how was it made ? How was it pulsed ? Whats the voltage ?

All one big ?

distribution method after that ???

Seriously ... 


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 10, 2009, 06:50:13 PM
As you can see everyone his thinking(Farrah day) is flawed due to the fact he is unable to answer the primary question:

How did Stanley Meyer run a 1.6L aluminium series engine with an hho production rate of only 7L/min.?

For in answering this question you will see if you have an hho producing device capable of producing 7L/min. and you add on the Gas Processor would you not get the same results? Sure yours wont be as effiecent as Stanley Meyers but it will work none the less, am I right? I know people that have systems producing over 14L/min. with a 4-5 amp draw from the system. They can't run an engine with twice the amount of hho production as Stanley Meyer had, and I ask why is that? Answer is they don't have the Gas Processor doing the job it is supposed to be doing hooked up to the system.

And to add insult to injury, why would you not build it? For as Stanley Meyer made the change from gaseous injection to water injection the Gas Processor still remained apart of the system. Everyone put your thinking caps on and ask, "why is this person telling you not to build the Gas Processor?" If you reason it out you can only come to a few conclussions, but the primary conclussion is, he is trying to get you to not build a nesasary device found in the patents of Stanley Meyer's for the reason of keeping you all trapped in the energy enslavement game they have us all playing right now. Think about it. :o

Energy independence is now ours for the taking,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 10, 2009, 07:44:07 PM
Dankie I can understand your confussion, but the resonant cavity unit is the WFC, not the Gas Processor the Gas Processor is part of the hydrogen fracturing process. You can see the resonant cavity unit here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-8.html#post51124

I have had it with this site for I can't explain anything due to not being able to load up imagies that I have.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Farrah Day on April 10, 2009, 08:46:37 PM
Firstly, 'he' is a 'she' as the more quick-minded around here might just have realised by now... ok, so... perhaps not too many then.

Quote
If you reason it out you can only come to a few conclussions, but the primary conclussion is, he is trying to get you to not build a nesasary device found in the patents of Stanley Meyer's for the reason of keeping you all trapped in the energy enslavement game they have us all playing right now

H2O you muppet, why would I want to do that? If you have ever read any of my threads you would realise that I want to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone else. It's simply illogical to start from the later end and work toward the beginning - surely even you can see this.

As for asking me to answer a stupid question again and again, get over it, because it all depends on whether or not you believe Meyer ran his 1.6l VW, and I for one - as already mentioned - have never considered the man remotely credible.

Do you have a balanced chemical equation for what happens when you ignite hydrogen ions in the presence of heavily ionised oxygen ions?  How can these ions react to form molecules or water??? Or are you, like others before you, not going to let real science get in the way?

And for Christ's sake, there is a 'c' in necessary, and only one 's' in conclusion. I guess education is all relative, eh!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on April 10, 2009, 09:06:53 PM
Now I am going to set this up as an engineering project as a result I will not tell you how to build, construct, and/or design your projects if you so choose to make them. The idea is simple, to get as many different models as possible that all work. You will be shown where the power truly comes from and how everything works for the water fuel injector system, not the WFC in use with the gasous type injectors. Read them as a set of rules to follow, anyway you see fit on how to apply what you have read is up to you.

Again I stress that this is to be a engineering type project, the full build of the design shall come from the individual and/or teams that want to work together on it. And most important of all is to have fun ;D.

Enjoy: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-7.html#post47874

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained.html

This will be my last post on this site due to not being able to up-load pic's, from my photo bucket or my PC to this site and that hampers me from explaining anything fully. If you have questions regarding Stanley Meyer's technology and/or patents go and join the above site or just read the thread from start to end. Also this site is not run the way a site should be in my opinion, and like I said I have set out to do what I intended on doing and that was to let people see some science and math added to the Stanley Meyer patents.

Good bye Hartiberlin.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: triffid on April 11, 2009, 03:03:01 AM
Since its public domain anyway,I will reveal here what I use.A salt, potassium chloride, will draw water out of the air.Then you use heat to drive the water off thus freeing up the salt to do it all over again.I would like to use solar heat.In my experiments KCl will pull equal amounts( by volume) of water out of the air.Usually takes about 3 days for maximum results.Triffid
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: triffid on April 13, 2009, 04:44:03 AM
What?No response?A 100 mls of KCl beads produces about 100 mls of liquid in 3-7 days.The waste heat that developes in a car that has its windows rolled up on a hot day could be used to drive off the water from the salt(KCl).Triffid
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: triffid on April 13, 2009, 04:47:49 AM
So a 55gal drum off this stuff would hold about 55 gal of liquid that one could pull the water out of using heat.And repeat the cycle over and over again.Triffid
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: newbie123 on April 22, 2009, 10:51:44 PM
It is bizzare how many people will "explain what Stan Meyer did to run his car on water".     Yet nobody has a working water car.   We need more science and less nonsense!

Does this site doesn't even have a thread for the recent cold fusion (LENR) replication done by the Navy?    Why not talk about something more real than all this heresay (aka, everything you've read and seen Re: S. Meyer)



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: HeairBear 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".
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sebosfato 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 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.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 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!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 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!)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sebosfato 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: dankie 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 .



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sebosfato 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: angryScientist 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 (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?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sebosfato 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sebosfato 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.   
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sebosfato 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sebosfato 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. 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on August 25, 2009, 01:51:24 AM
@L505

After re-reading your "Questions" several times, so I had some idea of what you were really asking, I can offer a small start.  First, there are two ways to create ions.  One is to add an electron.  The other is to remove one. 

You need to add energy to pop off an electron. The problem is when you strip 4 electrons from the Oxygen atom, you have to spend a lot of energy to pop those electrons off. When you ignite the gases and the water comes out the tail pipe, you got the same energy back as what you did to pop those 4 electrons off.

I think you are discussing the water fuel cell, though. Whereas I am discussing the spark plug injector which uses stripped oxygen, gas processor, etc. Well this is one problem with Stan's devices, he never clearly separated them. Was the gas processor and stripped oxygen also used with the water fuel cell? I guess it was in later stages.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on August 25, 2009, 01:57:31 AM
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.

So you are saying that some how one can take an electron away (very little energy), and then the other electrons follow without spending energy, due to a chain reaction.  What causes it, and where did this free energy come from? The chain reaction is powered by what? molecular movement? Molecular wind?

With a magnet, if you take one magnet and repel another magnet,  it does not create a chain reaction where millions of other magnets give us free energy. All the magnets are part of the strain in the whole system and you need to add energy to get passed each magnet. The magnet analogy might be bad, but this why the magnet motor and toy magnet car tracks by Howard Johnson didn't turn out, and why he made some assumptions that were false which led him to never getting his dream working.  It's still possible Stan had similar dreams and theories, and hoped one day his water fuel system would work, and maybe it never did. Maybe it did. No one saw his spark plug injector work for sure, but I hope it works. It needs to be explained though, and that is why we are here asking questions about how his device worked.
Title: Advice for the Builders
Post by: L505 on August 25, 2009, 06:21:17 AM
Some advice for people building devices:

First prove that a remote control car works, and then you don't have to spend thousands of dollars moving a 3500 pound vehicle down the road - you only have to power a 2 pound r/c gas engine car.

Stan used a dune buggy but I'd go one step further in downsizing so that you literally do not even need a garage parking stall. A r/c car with a gas engine does not require a garage, it requires a tiny shop. It is also less dangerous if the r/c car blows up your shop, because there is only a tiny bit of fuel and all your parts are cheap to replace.

Why not use a remote control car, small, cheap, as the first prototype. Get a gasoline R/C car running on hydrogen. Then you don't need big expensive equipment - you just make the tiny water spark plug.  All the parts are smaller. For example you do not need a large metal lathe, now you only need a tiny metal lathe that you can get for under $300. All your engine parts are extremely cheap and you can work on the little car inside a small room - no need for a huge garage or barn. The costs of developing and testing on a full sized family car are horrifying.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sebosfato on August 25, 2009, 12:23:55 PM
I'm going to try it over and over again this way at least meyer and many others claim that it could work using resonance.
Meyer tried to fool everyone making people think his vic was resonating from theory about lc circuits it prove to be wrong and lc circuits prove to work as i said.

The is no voltage with no current. ok if you could use a 1 pf capacitor and 10000henries inductor for say you could have 40kv 1 ma recirculating but give me a break this is not even possible to work with this values.
So what i say must be right the values are quite possible the voltage is similar the input current is similar so i think to have understood where he tried to fool us. Ok i didn't have tested it yet. but have you ever saw anything about what i'm saying on internet? no
not even i 

so why?

Meyer protected his technology very well under a name Resonant cavity witch means very high Q tank circuit.

So believe me or not is your choice i ask for money as i finished all i have and now is difficult to get more and as i need to test this i find is fair to ask to people in internet that are working or would like to work or just believe its possible or at least believe what i'm saying is true to help me as if it comes out will be good to everyone.

A little car is much more difficult because i think you need at least a min production to achieve the chain reaction i'm talking about. its called collision.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488507/radiation/28820/Particle-aspects-of-light#ref=ref398827
http://www.sayedsaad.com/High_voltge/insulating_gases/insulating_gases_3.htm
Regards

My thread for donations and more informations http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on August 25, 2009, 08:56:02 PM
So believe me or not is your choice i ask for money

Open your own thread and stop spamming your money requests in this thread.

No one needs any money if they know how Stan's device works. People that need money are the ones who don't know how Stan's device works, so they need lots of money to fart around and figure out how it works using experimentation instead of understanding the theory.

EITHER THAT or you are looking for cigarette/bread money - go get a job at a grocery store.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 20, 2010, 06:15:02 AM
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/Timelinewithwhitebackground-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on March 22, 2010, 06:56:10 AM
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/Timelinewithwhitebackground-1.jpg)

Most importantly Stan never clearly explained how 4 electrons are stripped without expending energy. Electrons are not just waiting to be stripped for free. It takes great energy to strip electrons from atoms. That's what people don't understand when it comes to energy levels, and that's why there are all the free mol energy assumptions/miscalculations.

Now if you've discovered some magical way to strip electrons without expending energy, then you've gotta back it up with a sound theory and not quackery or assumption ("they'll just knock off because I said so due to my magical wave theory" isn't good enough).

People assume that it doesn't take much energy to knock off the electrons from the atom and that is simply not true.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on March 22, 2010, 02:36:45 PM
L505

Magic ?
or good engineering??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc

Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: HeairBear on March 22, 2010, 04:32:42 PM
Funny, I can strip electrons off of oxygen with only 5 watts of power! It's called an "Ionizer"...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on March 22, 2010, 11:10:49 PM
L505

Magic ?
or good engineering??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc

Chet

Let me get this straight, you actually think GOD created this? God who is supposed to be a good being? You think God engineered this for a laugh one day? Along with satan? You think god supports machine guns and laughs when we kill people too? Was it engineered at all?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on March 22, 2010, 11:14:30 PM
Funny, I can strip electrons off of oxygen with only 5 watts of power! It's called an "Ionizer"...

Funny, so can I - but then again I can also run a light bulb that is 5 watts and that doesn't mean the light bulb is producing 50000 watts of free electricity.  Electrons are like sticky magnets. It takes energy to pop off the electron from the atom, similar to how it takes energy to pop a magnet off another magnet. When you put the magnets near each other again (flame) and the magnet pulls the other magnet into it, you get back the same energy as you took to pry them apart.

If you can explain where the free energy comes from instead of just vague handwaving that "it takes 5 watts" then you're on your way to winning the noble prizes. For example, if you use 5 watts, your engine will be 5 watts - unless there is some other magic you are not explaining - which must be the case - or you're a quack. Don't get me wrong, I'm open minded - but vague handwaving from you folks and sending cute shrimp videos (which prove nothing) isn't gonna help much.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: HeairBear on March 22, 2010, 11:49:54 PM
Most importantly Stan never clearly explained how 4 electrons are stripped without expending energy. Electrons are not just waiting to be stripped for free. It takes great energy to strip electrons from atoms. That's what people don't understand when it comes to energy levels, and that's why there are all the free mol energy assumptions/miscalculations.

Now if you've discovered some magical way to strip electrons without expending energy, then you've gotta back it up with a sound theory and not quackery or assumption ("they'll just knock off because I said so due to my magical wave theory" isn't good enough).

People assume that it doesn't take much energy to knock off the electrons from the atom and that is simply not true.

Do you always argue with gibberish? This is the post I was addressing in the first place and now you want an answer to something else? Go educate yourself and figure it out like the rest of us! It helps to know what the hell you are debating in the first place. With the few nonsensical words you have written, it is clear you do not have the capacity to ponder such things let alone inadequate communication skills. If you truly believe this is all quackery, why hang around and argue about it? Is it because you are lonely?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on March 23, 2010, 01:11:45 AM
Do you always argue with gibberish? This is the post I was addressing in the first place and now you want an answer to something else? Go educate yourself and figure it out like the rest of us! It helps to know what the hell you are debating in the first place. With the few nonsensical words you have written, it is clear you do not have the capacity to ponder such things let alone inadequate communication skills. If you truly believe this is all quackery, why hang around and argue about it? Is it because you are lonely?

Look up something called "burden of proof" and "shifting the burden of evidence" and such phrases. When you are done that, please come back.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on March 23, 2010, 01:15:17 AM
by the way, I believe that my car can run on chinese green tea bags and nothing else, because tea gives people less cancer so why shouldn't my car run on it? I just have a hunch but no evidence so you are to LOOK IT UP and don't bother asking ME for any evidence because I THINK my car can run on green tea bags so it must be true, until YOU prove it cannot work
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: HeairBear on March 23, 2010, 01:34:59 AM
Actually, I can prove that you may be able to run your car on "Chinese Green Tea Bags". Why would I ask you for any evidence, when you clearly have no clue? Are you asking me for proof or evidence? Of what? That I can strip electrons off of molecules with a small amount of power? Easy Cheesy! How will you prove it cannot work? With your hypocritical hand waving?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 23, 2010, 02:09:27 AM
Look up something called "burden of proof" and "shifting the burden of evidence" and such phrases. When you are done that, please come back.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
"The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on."

... and yes, your magnet analogy was terrible.

from reading the last couple pages of talk about electrons, i get the distinct idea that you consider them to be discrete particles, is this correct? are you suggesting that electrons are discrete particles?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 27, 2010, 08:09:29 AM
A graph of events as they happen with Stanley Meyer water fuel injected technology over time, Enjoy!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on August 01, 2010, 07:26:12 PM
Hi Everyone,

I could use everyones help in gain the needed funding to bring our Stanley Meyer's technology for I made it on the Pepsi Refresh Project http://www.refresheverything.com/widget/?i=4f691802-d37c-102d-826f-0019b9b9e205&w=300
Now the future of Energy Independence is in our hands. Please spread the word and show your support with votes.

Thanks Everyone,

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on August 01, 2010, 07:27:05 PM
Hi Everyone,

I could use everyones help in gain the needed funding to bring our Stanley Meyer's technology for I made it on the Pepsi Refresh Project http://www.refresheverything.com/widget/?i=4f691802-d37c-102d-826f-0019b9b9e205&w=300
Now the future of Energy Independence is in our hands. Please spread the word and show your support with votes.

Thanks Everyone,

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on August 01, 2010, 09:55:04 PM
H20 power
I would tremendously value a quick look here!!{5watts  5 minutes  1 gallon water to gas]
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9448.msg250745#new

You are a "HUGE" asset to this community and of course we'll support you 100%

Thanks
Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on August 02, 2010, 05:33:33 AM

Thanks Chet,

Right now all I need is the funding as all the science is now done. I know where all the energy comes from to do what Stanley Meyer did now. When he spoke of resonance he was talking about more than one type of resonance. For example the Gas Processor is a light(radiant energy) resonant chamber and works just like a charge pump in a laser resonante cavity. I go over everything here at this site: http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174

Now I know also how the EPG system works  ;). All I had to do was stick to real science until I finnaly found where all the missing energies where coming from.

Enjoy becoming Energy Independent,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on August 10, 2010, 12:35:26 AM
Just incase the site above's link isn't working here is another: http://www.refresheverything.com/truegreensolutions
Again thanks everyone for your support for I can't do this with out you  :D

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Torana on September 06, 2010, 12:35:08 AM
L505 has got you all beat , that guys got a Stanley Steamer and a pile of tea bags to stuff in the burner, clever dude he is, hats off.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: L505 on October 17, 2010, 11:14:29 PM
from reading the last couple pages of talk about electrons, i get the distinct idea that you consider them to be discrete particles, is this correct? are you suggesting that electrons are discrete particles?


Stanley Meyer is the one who thought electrons are little "happy face" particles being consumed - not me.  He drew them like that. Why are you questioning me when you should be questioning Stanley Meyer's drawings?

The only thing I am doing is asking the same bloody question which everyone always avoids: how are electrons consumed, when in fact electrons in circuits just move from one place to another? Do you not understand how electrons don't just fly out of the wire and disappear into nowhere while a circuit is running?

The question being asked is how the electrons are "stripped" and "consumed", when technically electricity is NOT actually "consumed". The idea of electron "consumption" is a myth spread by electricity companies to the general public who do not understand the basics of electricity. It makes it easier to explain to the general population (idiots) that electrons are "consumed" but that's not how it works. Electrons do not disappear and become "consumed" or eaten up magically by pacman in traditional circuits. The electrons simply move from one place to another.   Unless, of course Stan figured out a way to just magically make the electrons disappear into thin air (and he didn't explain this at all, if so).

From what I can tell. Stan thought that lightbulbs "burn off" electrons. Light bulbs don't fricking do this! They just release light photons and heat, they don't fry and burn electrons as if it is some kind of electron barbecue. Maybe his device somehow worked but he just completely misunderstood it. It doesn't give me too much hope when you read a patent where someone thinks light bulbs fry off electrons like you are cooking eggs on a stove or something.

All someone has to do is explain how the electrons or waves are "consumed" which makes no sense to anyone who understands basic electricity. Unfortunately the quacks that visit this forum don't even understand basic electricity.  You don't have to go to school to learn about electrons and electricity, it's all available online.  If the electrons are consumed or disappear in Stan's device, one has to explain why and how, since electricity doesn't even work that way in the first place! They go from one place to another. If the mass is converted to energy and that's what Stan means, then where are these electrons going to come from to replace the lost ones, when it goes out the tail pipe? Water with missing electrons out the tailpipe may be cancerous and toxic. 

Of course, if the Stanley device never actually worked, and he was just theorizing like the retards on this page, then obviously the reason why it didn't work was because Stanley didn't understand basic electricity where electrons are not eaten up or consumed. Or, maybe his device did work and he simply misunderstood how it worked, and/or his explanation was missing a lot of details. Someone else claims it is converting mass to energy using acceleration. Consuming mass is not "free" energy, it's close, but not free;  That's just atomic energy like a bomb (still a good idea if it works, but not free energy device), and it is consuming mass.

One has to make sure we don't screw up our environment by giving off radiation and/or consuming mass that we don't want to consume (i.e. taking mass out of oceans, one would have to calculate how much mass is lost with millions of cars/airplanes). A proper explanation and balanced equations is still required for this device to ever be taken seriously. No one has provided ANY whatsoever.

This all reminds me of when people are working on a car and repairing parts blindly without knowing how the car works.  Car won't start? try replacing a relay see if it works.  Even if the relay isn't the problem, replace it anyway. Car still won't work? try cleaning the carb, see if it works. Still doesn't work? Try the distribitor cap, plugs, wires, and the coil. Still doesn't work? Try some more. Trial and error figuring things out will get the car working eventually, but it's better to know what the bloody problem is and how to solve it precisely, instead of putting on a blind fold and diddling around in your shop without a clue. 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Torana on October 18, 2010, 03:09:16 AM
Hey L505,  Theres  mountains of crap to do with Stans circuit and its MOSTLY taken as gospel
The old saying " if christians move in next door , ...count ya chickens..."

I read Stans Bro , stephen  was a military electrician and both worked on the project over 10 years so its fair to say Stan knew What he / they were doing but as public speaking goes ,1 he had to protect his investment , 2 how would ANYONE explain electronics to the general public?
so naturally it sounds like gibberish .
Im into electronics and It sometimes drives me nuts when I read some or more like lots of "free energy" concepts . Im guessing your getting rubbed the wrong way with the info , thing is ,if you KNOW it doesnt make sense ,chances are your correct .
Youll find that ALL patents are misleading for a reason but you try telling anyone that.
Theyre written by the --PATENT OFFICE-- , they are NOT and never meant to be instruction manuals.
Try to build a mic oven from the patent, try making KFC chicken , try making coke cola , All these corps have intellectual property and it is protected by a peice of paper .

So ..is stans patent drawings factual? hell no , was he giving away his tech ? hell no.
I live on the island that stan came to in the "house video in NZ" and I can tell you theres no cars here running on water. theres h2 boosters but thats all.

People have a choice to learn about electronics but how many want to put in the time?

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on October 18, 2010, 05:13:41 AM


One has to make sure we don't screw up our environment by giving off radiation and/or consuming mass that we don't want to consume (i.e. taking mass out of oceans, one would have to calculate how much mass is lost with millions of cars/airplanes). A proper explanation and balanced equations is still required for this device to ever be taken seriously. No one has provided ANY whatsoever....

http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174
http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=227

I give an explaination as best I could on these two links.

h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 07, 2011, 06:48:52 AM
Hi Everyone,
Here is someone else that has gotten the correct effect of voltage taking over while the amps are being restricted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziZ33MA7OM
Meyer lives again!

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: hoptoad on February 08, 2011, 10:45:32 AM
Now for something completely different.    :o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU47blakiiI&feature=related


Cheers all - didn't know where else to post this link.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Mark69 on February 08, 2011, 03:47:05 PM
thats a good find, hoptoad.   Inventor states he will sell invention to a company to fund his search for a cure for cancer.  That means the oil company is going to buy it and we will never hear of it again.  :(
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 08, 2011, 08:54:48 PM
Now for something completely different.    :o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU47blakiiI&feature=related


Cheers all - didn't know where else to post this link.

When you have something you think is totally new and you want to share it with everyone what you are suppose to do is make up your own thread, not dump it on someone else's. The man in that video is dead now, and like Meyer before him so is the technology unless you or someone else can reproduce his work.
I don't get you people I have shown you that Stanley A. Meyer's technology has come back to life and this is the kind of bullshit I get in return? What the F@#*! It has been close to 12 years since the death of Stanley A. Meyer and just this year some have shown the same charging effects on water vindicating the work of Meyer since he was put through the propaganda shredding machine by the science academics and the mad media machine owned and controlled by the Energy Sellers.
I understand a great deal of Meyer's work and when it comes to how water is being broken down a different way than Dr. Faraday's work I know as close to 100% of how it's done. I also know how the hydrogen fracturing technology works close to 100%. I can't teach here on this site the way I feel comfortable with so I post a site where I can teach teach in a manor that I feel gets the main points across, as I go over the science behind the patents. http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174 From what I have seen in peoples capabilities here on this site, with the teachings I posted, a good 15-30% of you here on this site should now be converting your cars to run on water as it's sole source of fuel. Sure I didn't gift wrap the technology in a nice pretty box for you but you have to know this technology is very resistant to almost all forms of back-engineering. This month, for example, I just made a break through in just how the VIC Matrix Circuit truly works, and that, is something I have had to come back too and try and solve several times with my work on Stanley A. Meyer technologies for it is deceptively simple looking but in how it truly functions it's very complex. But as Meyer himself sometimes said, "You must learn how to ask the right questions," and I believe now I have done just that.
So now you have a choice to make, you can either except what I have to say about the works of Stanley Meyer's or reject it, but the choice is and has always been yours to make. Its your move now.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: WilbyInebriated on February 08, 2011, 10:52:19 PM
From what I have seen in peoples capabilities here on this site, with the teachings I posted, a good 15-30% of you here on this site should now be converting your cars to run on water as it's sole source of fuel...
is your car converted to run on water as it's sole source of fuel?

But as Meyer himself sometimes said, "You must learn how to ask the right questions," and I believe now I have done just that.
i believe i did... just previously.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Mark69 on February 09, 2011, 03:42:17 AM
Willy  ;)

H2O, have you also thought about making a system to supply the gas to run a home furnace?  I think that might be easier in getting people up to speed on this technology.  I would greatly be interested in this before I try this on a car.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 09, 2011, 06:31:23 AM
My company is bringing out a different part of Stanley Meyer's technology which will not be talked about until it's unveiling as I have stated before my knowledge of Stanley Meyer's technology is vast. I did my part in doing what everyone else before me would not, and that was to give the water for fuel technology away for free. Sure you are going to have to build, design, and everything else that goes along with creating this technology for yourself. But if this is to be a grass roots effort then I say to you, "What are you waiting for!" My company already has it's agenda on which part of his technology it will market. As for what I have converted to use this technology I will not say as this is not the correct place to do that in. This is a WAR for our independence, an energy independence, where the individual is in full control of their own energy needs. The time to act is now for you all are those individuals!

As for a home furnace or those other parts of Stanley Meyer's technology, no I haven't built anything like that as of yet. To tell the truth I haven't even thought of doing so until you just brought it up right now. I will look into it for future projects for I think you are correct there is a need for that too.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Mark69 on February 09, 2011, 03:09:02 PM
H2O, While I am sure everyone agree with me that we appreciate you sharing everything, the problem is, at least for me, the Meyer stuff is so far above me ability to comprehend the technology.  I have a hard time following most of the threads, as I am a beginner with electronics.  Also, it is pretty scary to be making a modification to ones automobile.  After all, this is a main vehicle for most that can't afford to be damaged by a screw up.
If it is possible, would you make an e book showing exactly how to make this technology, in very simple terms, with a parts list etc.?  I myself would like to start small, a lawn mower motor or small generator to see if my project would be a success before moving on to something much larger.  I definitely would be interested in the conversion for the home furnace as heating ones home is a large expense.  I want to thank you in advance for looking into this and coming up with a plan.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: WilbyInebriated on February 12, 2011, 12:08:36 AM
My company is bringing out a different part of Stanley Meyer's technology which will not be talked about until it's unveiling as I have stated before my knowledge of Stanley Meyer's technology is vast. I did my part in doing what everyone else before me would not, and that was to give the water for fuel technology away for free. Sure you are going to have to build, design, and everything else that goes along with creating this technology for yourself. But if this is to be a grass roots effort then I say to you, "What are you waiting for!" My company already has it's agenda on which part of his technology it will market. As for what I have converted to use this technology I will not say as this is not the correct place to do that in. This is a WAR for our independence, an energy independence, where the individual is in full control of their own energy needs. The time to act is now for you all are those individuals!

As for a home furnace or those other parts of Stanley Meyer's technology, no I haven't built anything like that as of yet. To tell the truth I haven't even thought of doing so until you just brought it up right now. I will look into it for future projects for I think you are correct there is a need for that too.
so that's a no then... your car isn't converted to run on water as its sole source of fuel.

i find that interesting.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 12, 2011, 01:41:34 AM
so that's a no then... your car isn't converted to run on water as its sole source of fuel.

i find that interesting.

I find it even more interesting that you don't want the technology, you haven't read the thread I posted, you haven't done anything, all you want is for someone to do song and dace for you. News flash I am not an entertainer so don't you dare go expecting me to do a song and dance for you.

So using your type of mindset shown here, you reject the technology and everything else I have tried to give you, and again I find that even more interesting.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: HeairBear on February 12, 2011, 02:23:08 AM
So, how does the circuit diagram for the variable plate demo cell play into with what you are talking about? The diagram shown is an edit of the original but labeled with substitutes. Why did you choose 2 henry coils when the original coil wasn't even in the same ballpark?

Here is a pic of the actual device diagrammed...

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 12, 2011, 02:55:34 AM
Hi HeairBear,
That is just to get people started as the circuit will work and the inventive mind can make it work even better.

What has it been now since we've last talked, 1-2 years? How have you been?

Well, after Aaron and his crew threw me out of the Energetic forum I was free to think without all of their misdirections and distractions, and now I think I have solved the whole thing.
Things I know for sure:
How the hydrogen fracturing process fully works
How Stanley Meyer's technology breaks down the water molecules, plus get this, it is not a, "Catastrophic Dielectric Failure."
How the Electron Extraction Circuit works fully
How the Gas Processor works fully
I know where the energy is coming from to run a car plus all of the rest of the things Meyer talked about doing with the technology.

I am finishing up my understanding of the VIC Matrix Circuit right now, just have a few more experiments to run and a whole lot of math to do.

That 8XA circuit, if one thinks creatively, can power a car but they will need to build the Gas Processor as one need that device to be able to prolong the formation of the water molecules as Stanley Meyer explains.

I posted quite a bit of information on the http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174 site that is, for the most part, based in science.

Enjoy!

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 12, 2011, 07:44:00 PM
Hi TIA,

That circuit design I got from Tony Woodside and is the circuit that is being used in the video I post by OutlawStC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziZ33MA7OM. Now OutlawStC doesn't fully understand what is going on but I do. The one thing everyone needs to learn about Stanley A. Meyer water for fuel technology is Lindemann had it all wrong in his explanation of Meyer's work for there is no Catastrophic Dielectric Failure taking place. Meyer's technology doesn't work like that it works by stealing electrons from the molecules which makes them unstable and break apart for they no longer can obey the conservation of mass. I go over it a bit here: http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showpost.php?p=4588&postcount=74

Remember that circuit is just to get people started for it is working, I am finishing up my work on the VIC Matrix Circuit and when done will share what I have learned about it, but so far that transformer is very difficult to explain. I do go over how to get it working correctly loosely at the other site but have to break it down for people as that is a lot of information one has to take in and learn how to do with lots of math to boot. I just need to confirm the science and math with expire-mental data, okay?  Once I have all the answers I will post it on the other site.

Tony Woodside posted an updated circuit here: http://www.globalkast.com/projects.htm

Thanks
h2opower



Hi H2Opower

Nice Circuit, but I have one little problem, and you may have already corrected it on newer designs, but there is so much out there that I rarely have time to view half of it.

The "Pass" component shown is an SCR, which once conducting will not shut off until the current drops below the threshold point.  Is this the correct part and idea?  My only assumption is the actual current flowing through the coil and "Water Cap" is always below the this point, but wouldn't this make start-up a "Problem".    (As in, the first cycle would turn on the device, but until the "Charge" was enough to limit the current, the part latches.)

I realize that there may be dynamics I am unaware of and I have not actually built this specific circuit, but I have made enough of this type of setup to know that reducing the current has always been one of the hardest parts (For me, at least...) and I am quite curious.  I can imagine that a 2 Henry "Choke" might be enough to prevent "Latch-up", but I didn't want to guess and I don't have enough experience with the dynamics of the "Water Cap" itself to figure it with plain math.

I am going to read and save the last few links you provided, and that may very well answer my questions, but any insight you would care to offer would be greatly appreciated.

TIA
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 13, 2011, 08:01:58 AM
Hi Art,
Sorry about that, guess I am not up on all the latest shorthands. The VIC Matrix Circuit is one complex device that looks so simple. Try this, go over one full pulse and one full off time and write down everything that takes place with respect to time, and you will find it is far more complicated than it looks. Then with each new type of transformer something totally different was added in to the mix. A long time ago I solved one part of the figure 6-1 VIC in the SMTB but there is a lot more I missed and some things I got dead wrong. One thing about me is I am not afraid to admit if I have made mistake, but like most I don't like it when it happens for I have to rewrite my mind in a way and change my thinking. Getting over Lindemann's explanation was about the best thing I could have done for it opened up a whole new line of questioning and this time all the answer, so far, are coming from today's modern science. Now I can see that everything Meyer did can be explained with science. Thanks for kind words, and I hope I don't let you down.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 19, 2011, 09:19:32 AM
In this video, by OutLawStc, you can see voltage taking over while amps are being restricted. Now OutLawStc doesn't understand what is taking place with his reaction so I will let everyone know what they are seeing and relate it to patent 4798661.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziZ33MA7OM

In this graph Meyer shows the relationship between added resistance and what he calls the, "Breakdown Point." The added resistance is shown in other drawing as 60n and goes in between the negative electrode and the ground. The higher the resistance the higher the voltage will be needed to reach the breakdown point and the lower the amp leakage current will be.

One thing I'd like to make clear is there is no Dielectric Failure taking place in any of Meyer's work. Those two words are the main reason no one has ever duplicated Meyer's work for they lead to one asking all the wrong questions. How Stanley A. Meyer broke down the water molecules is by stealing electrons which cause the water molecules to no longer satisfy the octet rule and breaks apart into it component atoms, and note Meyer says the gases coming off are ionized in some of his videos, meaning missing electrons. What you are seeing in the video is water beginning to be ionized. It is in this ionized state that electrons can move in the water molecules, some get kicked out just the same as someone making ozone. The water molecule can remain the water molecule with only one electron kicked out, with the loss of two or more electrons the water molecules become unstable and breaks down into it's component atoms hydrogen and oxygen. This is a passive process much the same as the way a plant breaks down the water molecules, though plants make good use of light energy to push the electrons out to a higher orbit thus making it easier to pull the electrons away from the water molecules for energy is always conserved and the energies all add up to aid the plants to live and give us life in return.

This is how Stanley A. Meyer broken down molecules by stealing electrons from them by way of ionization. The electron extraction circuit is very much needed to take these freed electrons out of the system so they don't restabilize the molecules and so the water bath, in the WFC, doesn't get saturated with electrons slowing down the reaction over time. That is what you are seeing happen in the video, water molecules starting to be broken down by losing too many electrons. In this reaction if you increase the 60n resistance you can cut down the amp use to zero or to a very minimal value. You can also decrease the gap distance between the electrodes for amp leakage means dielectric breakdown which is something Meyer tried very hard to stop from taking place. So now you see why so many failed to replicate Meyer's work for they where all trying to do what Meyer was trying not to do. Everyone say, "Thank you Peter Lindemann."  For that wrong prediction of Meyer's work sent everyone on 180 degrees in the wrong direction from where they wanted to be. Aaron's aid is also false as conditioning the tubes makes it easier to have amp leakage which is also going 180 degrees in the wrong direction from where one wishes to go. In my opinion this was a deliberate act to keep people from solving Stanley A. Meyer technologies. My reasoning is based on how Aaron would always try and steer what I was uncovering in the wrong direction and since Lindemann is his mentor I can see where all the misdirection was coming from. The "Nitrogen Theory" is totally dead and it is the main reason for my being booted from the EF, as I was getting too close to the truth. Now everyone can see how Stanley A. Meyer technologies really works in breaking down molecules into their component atoms and the high energy yields when products are formed from atoms missing electrons.

 And note doing the reverse, IE, stealing the electrons from the atoms prior to placing them in a situation where they have to react to form molecules results in the slowing down the reaction and releases a great amount of energy in the process of creating the missing electrons to satisfy the octet rule, the conservation of mass wins . This also obeys the conservation of energy in that what energy was put into the taking of the electrons is given back when products are formed. I go over that on the explanation page. http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174

 

May the truth set you free!

 

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 21, 2011, 11:32:29 AM
Hi Everyone,
Now this video goes to show what I am talking about when I say there is no dielectric failure taking place in Meyer's work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=algECMeQFrE&feature=related
Meyer worked very hard to prevent the dielectric breakdown of the water molecules as his goal is to ionize the water molecules so that electrons could be ejected from the water molecules. This is the Octet Rule that Meyer was dealing with as until his time no one had ever ask, "What happens if a molecule starts to lose electrons and can no longer satisfy the Octet Rule?" The answer is the molecules will breakdown into their component elements. So as you can see what Meyer had discovered has the full backing of modern science, it's just no one had ever ask this question before, let alone use it to break down molecules.

If you don't know what the Octet Rule is here is a video that will aid your knowledge in understanding just what it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b56I8U24xU

This is as far as water can ionized and remain stable molecules: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yM-rLTOQhw ionizing the water molecules beyond this point results in the breakdown of the water molecules into their component atoms. The energy being added to the system in Meyer's work is the ionization energy coming from the electricity being added to the system and that pushes the reaction to the right it keeps pushing it to the right until electrons start to get ejected from the [H3O]+ and that sets up and equilibrium unbalance that is countered by the [OH]- giving up it's hydrogen to maintain a equilibrium state. So the result of ionization is the [H3O]+ breaks down by losing it's electron and the [OH]- dumps the hydrogen atom to maintain balance, four hydrogen gas atoms and two oxygen gas atoms are released in this process.

Now this is a new theory that has yet to be proved but in looking at what takes place experimentally it seems possible. [H4O]+2 would be a second level of ionization and [OH]- + [H3O]+ a first level ionization. For I am not the only one that has notice this, the bubble evolution is much larger than normal electrolysis, seen in Ravi's replication, Outlawsct, and even Dr. Dingle makes note of it in one of his videos saying the bigger bubbles are hydrogen. Since we are adding in energy to the system this makes sense for you can think of it as a last stand for the water molecules to try and stay together. One could argue for example for a H[H2O]4(+) or even H[H2O]6(+) based upon how lithium and sodium hydrates. Since this is new science the one who figures this one out will get to be in the history books, and their theories will be taught in the class rooms of the future ;).

All of my work on Meyer technologies is science based and everything Meyer did does obey and follow modern scientific principles. I wanted all of you to know you don't have to take my word for it as it is all backed by modern science, one just has to ask the right questions. My work shows the science behind the patents.

Enjoy!

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Doug1 on February 21, 2011, 02:11:27 PM
So a electron vacuum sort of,would work?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 21, 2011, 06:46:57 PM
So a electron vacuum sort of,would work?

Yes, as all energy is added up and vacuum energy would be viewed as, "Gravitational" energy from the perspective of the water molecules. Remember Meyer added in "Light" energy with the LEDs to lower the electrical energy needed to remove the electrons as all these different forms of energy add up and work together. This follows the conservation of energy as all energies added to the mix are added up as one working towards breaking down the water molecules into their component elements as they lower the individual energies requirements to get the job done than if it where working alone to do the same thing.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: guruji on February 22, 2011, 09:53:59 PM
Hi H20power so what can one do to increase electrolysis in a cell? A guy said to put an oscillator near the cell. I am using tha lawton circuit now but if you have other ideas I would like to hear.
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 23, 2011, 11:30:17 AM
Hi H20power so what can one do to increase electrolysis in a cell? A guy said to put an oscillator near the cell. I am using tha lawton circuit now but if you have other ideas I would like to hear.
Thanks

Hi,
What you want it to do is ionized the water, for you do not want any electrolysis going on at all. Once you get the water to ionized just like creating ozone, water starts to lose electrons. An atom can lose a few electrons and remain the atom it is, but not a molecule for by losing electrons makes the molecule become unstable and break apart for it can no longer satisfy the Octet Rule.
In order to do this the charging choke must have a greater capacitance than the capacitor that is to be charged. In order to get higher voltages the resistance of the circuit has too increase. In patent 4789661 in the drawings you will see a variable resistor just after the negative electrode and the ground. The resistor is 60n, and in the patent Meyer tells us that with increased voltages the resistance has to go up. This raises the "Breakdown Point" and at the same time cuts the amps going to the system. The 8xa circuit can be modified with a Lawton circuit so your in luck  ;).  As you raise the voltage more water is broken down by way of increased ionization. That is the key to Meyer's water breakdown method, high resistance to keep the amps low and high voltage to ionize the water molecules thus ejecting very electrons it needs to keep it in a stable state.

There is no normal electrolysis taking place in the method Meyer employed. By increasing voltage/resistance you increase the amount of gas produced.

Hope that helped some,

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Doug1 on February 23, 2011, 01:20:55 PM
I dont think that was the pat number you were looking to post.You might want to check that.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Doug1 on February 23, 2011, 01:51:41 PM
Wiki is nice enough to pile them all up in a bunch at the end of their page on Stan.
 U.S. Patent 5,149,407,U.S. Patent 4,936,961,U.S. Patent 4,826,581,U.S. Patent 4,798,661,U.S. Patent 4,613,779,U.S. Patent 4,613,304,U.S. Patent 4,465,455,U.S. Patent 4,421,474,U.S. Patent 4,389,981
 I would still use pat2pdf to read them and would not be to shocked if one day it does not come out that these patents have been altered.Should still be enough to work off of to play around with it.Dont forget the cited patents with in the individual patents.that may lead you to an easier way to get it done.Most inventors have to create a more complex method to avoid infringment on previous works.Work your way backwards and it likely paints a simple picture requiring little effort or work.
 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: guruji on February 23, 2011, 02:00:19 PM
Hi,
What you want it to do is ionized the water, for you do not want any electrolysis going on at all. Once you get the water to ionized just like creating ozone, water starts to lose electrons. An atom can lose a few electrons and remain the atom it is, but not a molecule for by losing electrons makes the molecule become unstable and break apart for it can no longer satisfy the Octet Rule.
In order to do this the charging choke must have a greater capacitance than the capacitor that is to be charged. In order to get higher voltages the resistance of the circuit has too increase. In patent 4789661 in the drawings you will see a variable resistor just after the negative electrode and the ground. The resistor is 60n, and in the patent Meyer tells us that with increased voltages the resistance has to go up. This raises the "Breakdown Point" and at the same time cuts the amps going to the system. The 8xa circuit can be modified with a Lawton circuit so your in luck  ;).  As you raise the voltage more water is broken down by way of increased ionization. That is the key to Meyer's water breakdown method, high resistance to keep the amps low and high voltage to ionize the water molecules thus ejecting very electrons it needs to keep it in a stable state.

There is no normal electrolysis taking place in the method Meyer employed. By increasing voltage/resistance you increase the amount of gas produced.

Hope that helped some,

h2opower


Hi H20power thanks for the info first of all I don't know how much voltage the lawton circuit can hold. Second I have a 12v battery bank so I should do an inverter to higher voltage say 48v. Is this dangerous for an arc happening in water?.
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 23, 2011, 11:13:00 PM
HI Everyone,
Yeah that was a typo, sorry about that should be 4798661.
As for getting sparks in between the gaps that is what Meyer's definition of Amp Leakage means, which is also the dielectric breakdown of the medium. So the resistance is there to prevent all of that from happening. In order for an arc to occur it needs some amps behind it, and Meyer tried to take all of the amps away from the system as much as he could. For again the object is to ionize the water by preventing any Dr. Faraday type electrolysis from taking place. Just like something that makes ozone from the air Meyer did the same thing to water. He ionized it to remove electrons which in turn causes the water molecules to break down into their component atoms.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: MasterPlaster on February 24, 2011, 05:49:51 AM
Didn't Meyer say that in his VIC circuit at resonance the pulses are doubled?
Please some one point me to that note.

This is all I have found by myself but I think it is something significant:

Memo WFC 426:
...outputting Voltage-wave signal
(64a xxx 64n) being a pulse-frequency doubler due to Inductance Reactance (FL) of Inductor Coil .....

and


Inductance Reactance performs several functions simultaneously or to given stimuli: increases applied voltage amplitude (Vo - Vn), doubles input frequency....
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Secruoser on February 24, 2011, 07:48:05 AM
What is the simplest setup I can make as an experiment?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 24, 2011, 10:23:18 AM
Hi Again,
The easiest one to build is the 8xa circuit just be sure to add in the 60n variable resistors as shown in the patent.

As for the doubling of frequency that is due to the two charging chokes L1 & L2. L1 is a LC circuit and L2 is a LCR circuit. The wave form coming into the blocking diode from the secondary coil is an AC sin wave that is cut into a half wave by the blocking diode. Once the pulse terminates in L1 the magnetic field collapses inducing a charge on L2 which sends it's induced pulse AC sin wave to the secondary, acting as a resistor, to the blocking diode. The pulse is 180 degrees out of phase so it fills in the half wave coming from the first pulse of the secondary coil. When you look at it on a scope it looks like it double the frequency, but it is two separate charges you are seeing from L1 and L2.

Hope that helps,
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: happyfunball on February 24, 2011, 11:06:32 AM
Do you have a working system powering an actual vehicle h20power?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 24, 2011, 11:29:29 AM
Do you have a working system powering an actual vehicle h2opower?

I wasn't going too, but since gas prices are suppose to be headed to around $150-$200 a barrel I think I should go ahead and convert me Scirocco & Jetta over to a water car now as I won't have Meyer other technologies up in time before the increase in fuel prices hit. I have to work on the circuit a bit to get it to work with the two cars, but I have other plans in the works for other types of vehicles coming in the future. These I will promote with my company as Meyer's technology is vast in giving things energy independence.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Doug1 on February 24, 2011, 12:36:46 PM
Our local fuel prices are at 3.15 a gal and it's still under 100 a barrel. If that doubles in this economy it would get very ugly in about a NY minute. On the other hand it makes more sense to curb consumption then to let people realize there is not enough oil to meet demand and peak oil has already been reached. That would insight panic and hording of pretty much everything.
 Think about how many products depend on the petro chemical side of the coin. With most of the economies being in the tank right now manufacturing is down not just transportation. It can never go back to the hay day and it will only slip backwards if it can not be maintained at present levels.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Doug1 on February 24, 2011, 12:35:07 PM
I would think this one would be easiest to work off of.It seems to be based losely on the frame work of an automotive alternator for the power supply.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Doug1 on February 24, 2011, 02:39:58 PM
I dont know how that happened not supposed to have been a double image.Here is another one with some drawings of an alternator Y configuration ebedded onto the other image.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: MasterPlaster on February 24, 2011, 03:21:23 PM
The secret of Meyer is the VIC and how it is pulsed.

Understanding the principals is more important than schematics.

Does anyone have a VIC for sale?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 24, 2011, 07:11:54 PM
The secret of Meyer is the VIC and how it is pulsed.

Understanding the principals is more important than schematics.

Does anyone have a VIC for sale?

That's not all that true. The secret of the VIC Matrix Circuit is realizing that the primary and the chokes have the same inductance and that the secondary and the electrode pair have match capacitances. The reason for this is when the primary goes into resonance it does so with the secondaries distributed capacitance value. The chokes go into resonance with the electrode pairs, one chokes set per electrode pair, no sharing. The important thing in that set is the chokes must have a greater capacitance than the electrode pair it is hooked up to. Reason is very clear, when the pulse terminates in the chokes if their energy storage capabilities is lower than that of the electrode pair then the electrode pair will go to fill the chokes with energy. If the chokes have a greater energy storage capabilities than the electrode pair then when the pulse terminates the energy stored in the chokes will go to fill the electrode pair it is connected to.

Just about everyone I have seen building VIC transformers hasn't given this any thought. For voltage is pressure, correct? Then the device holding the greatest pressure will go to fill the device with the lower pressure once the main pressure coming from the power supply is turned off, correct? It really is that simple. All the misinformation put out on this technology was done to keep this technology out of our hands. All it took for me to figure this out was to do the experiments for myself not listening to those screaming the loudest about this technology. Build, test, and note the results following scientific principles and guidelines. The biggest hurdle that I over came was that of Lindemann's video telling everyone that it was a "Catastrophic Dielectric Failure," for it is not a dielectric failure of the medium what so ever. The medium is being ionized and keeping it's dielectric properties intact is of utmost importance to getting this to work correctly, and now that we know that amp leakage means keeping the dielectric properties of water intact we can go places for the questions you come up with now are heading in the right direction.

As far as VIC's for sale it really doesn't work that way as it has to be sold as a match set. Each VIC transformer has to be matched with the electrode pair it is to charge. One VIC per electrode pair which is seen clearly in Meyer's videos showing 10 tube sets with 10 VIC transformers to charge them. And as far as I know no one is selling any matched sets. This has to be a grass roots effort and as such it is the responsibilities of each blade of grass to grow with what they have been given to grow with.

Things everyone will have to learn are;
1. How to calculate distributed capacitance of a coil.
2. How to calculate coupling capacitance of a bifilar coil set.
3. How a LC circuit works.
4. How a LCR circuit works.
5. How to calculate the capacitance of an electrode set regardless of what medium flows through it.

When you go about the patents looking for how this works ask these questions:
1. What has changed from this earlier design to the next one?
2. Where/what did the main parts of the system get moved too or replaced by?
3. What is different and what remained the same?

Asking these questions starting from patent 4798661 you can see that the whole power supply of the 8xa circuit got moved to the secondary of the VIC transformer. The 60n resistors got replaced  with resistance wire. How was the pulsing coming from the rectified AC by way of the variact, replace? Answer. By the bifilar coil action to give the same charging capabilities of the original system. What replaced the variact's variable voltage control? Answer. A high side PWM for the most part.

As you can see if you ask the right questions it will lead one to solve this technology. So you see you have to learn to ask the right questions to solve this technology. I have ask these questions and more on all of Meyer technologies, and have the answers to most of them. Sure it took awhile but in the end I now understand what this technology is and what it is not. For it matters not how much time something takes to learn but when that time comes around you have learned it. For time is out of our control and will take place rather we learn this technology or not.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: guruji on February 24, 2011, 09:22:35 PM
Hi H2opower about the lawton circuit you said that I have to increase voltage. So I should do a sort of inverter after the circuit to higher voltage?
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 24, 2011, 10:48:50 PM
Hi H2opower about the Lawton circuit you said that I have to increase voltage. So I should do a sort of inverter after the circuit to higher voltage?
Thanks
Are you going to use a system that has just the chokes or a isolated pulsing VIC transformer? If you are using an isolated VIC pulsing transformer then all you need to add to the system is a high side PWM. In the pic of the high side PWM you just need to change the p-channel FET to one that can take a higher voltage. This PWM is hooked up to the positive side of the primary coil and the Lawton circuit to the negative side of the primary coil. That will give you control of the voltages without affecting the pulsing of the transformer.
If you are just using chokes then copying the H11D1 set up in the 8xa circuit will work best as the FETs don't like that type of slamming and will burn out. The Lawton can take the place of the pulsing unit in the 8xa circuit. It would connect right up to the 7404 shown in Tony Woodside's diagram.

Now as far as getting these hooked up to cars one has to first convert the car to run on propane gas then just switch fuels with all of Meyer's safety features added in, like the quenching circuit technology. That system would be set up to maintain a higher pressure than the working pressure needs for the system.

I know some are going to say it a bad idea to pressurize the hho, but if precautions are taking it can be safe. For whats the difference than running around with a tank full of a flammable liquid that will slow cook you and smoke the life out of you in the event of an accident? There are always risk with any system just take care in planning for the risk and you will be fine.

Hope that helps,

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: guruji on February 25, 2011, 01:48:27 PM
Hi H20power thanks for response I am using this circuit posted: Is this not a PWM? Regarding pressurizing HHO I read that if one uses neutral plates for ionizing the gas would be safe.
Sorry posted two images.
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: alan on February 25, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
I'm going to create the 3-23 VIC:
A modified EI to UI core.
Turns:
Primary: 50-100 thick wire
Secondary: 30k-40k 38awg
Chokes: 30k-40k 38awg

any suggestions?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 25, 2011, 07:20:32 PM
I'm going to create the 3-23 VIC:
A modified EI to UI core.
Turns:
Primary: 50-100 thick wire
Secondary: 30k-40k 38awg
Chokes: 30k-40k 38awg

any suggestions?

Okay your going for the isolated VIC Matrix Circuit. Here are the rules:

1. Primary and chokes use the same size wire or very close to it.
2. Primary and chokes must have the same inductance value.
3. If you bifilar wound the primary that equals two primaries in one. Which is why in the patent Meyer's 3-23 VIC the Primary and the chokes have the same total turn counts.
4. The secondary's distributed capacitance value must be the same as the electrode set's capacitance value that is to be charged. Example, if you calculate 1000 pf for the electrode set then the distributed capacitance of the secondary coil must equal 1000 pf. You can alter wire sizes to get the desired step-up ratio you want to go for. Smaller wire sizes means more wounds on the core as the distributed capacitance value is directly related to the physical size of the wire being used, the larger the wire size the higher the distributed capacitance and so forth but equal less physical wounds on the core.
5. For the wires used for the secondary and chokes use resistance wire, like ​constantan-45.
6. Chokes must have a greater capacitance value than the electrode pair. That is to say the energy storage capabilities of the chokes must be greater than the energy storage capabilities of the electrode pair. This determines the turn count of the chokes as you will have a minimum turn count to have greater energy storage capability than that of the electrode pair. Note the greater it is the faster it will charge the cell.
7. Only one VIC per electrode pair. If you have 10 tubes you will need 10 VIC's. But the good news is all the VIC's can be powered by the same power supply but everything must be perfect so they all go into resonance at the same frequency.

Other rules and things of importance:
1. The maximum pulse rate is twice the resonant frequency. Example if you find resonance at 500 Hz then the maximum you can pulse it is 1000 Hz.
2. Note the high side PWM connects to the top side of the primary and the Lawton circuit to the bottom side of the primary. With just the Lawton circuit once you find resonance that's it, all you can do from that point is adjust the pulsing rate. With the addition of the high side PWM you can now adjust the voltage once resonance is found.
3. This is best done on a drawing program of some sort to easily get all the values needed and be able to swap wires sizes without having to build it and test it manually. As you can see I draw them in AutoCAD when designing the VIC transformers prior to building them.
4. No using neutral plates! That messes up capacitance values.

Hope this helps as it is a lot of work getting these things built correctly. Best of luck to you,
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: guruji on February 25, 2011, 08:54:51 PM
Hi H20power where is the H11D1 setup found?
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 25, 2011, 09:34:13 PM
Hi H20power where is the H11D1 setup found?
Thanks

http://www.globalkast.com/projects.htm
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: illuminati on February 26, 2011, 04:34:30 AM
Hi all i like to add my bit on the vic.

Meyer did not make it easy to build the vic from the patents but had plenty in there to hang u in court. He talked of EBP this was the way he trapped electrons in the secondary coil, u should only have a small leakage current if the transformer is shorted and the full voltage should remain across the secondary, if it dosen`t do this then there is no current restriction or not enough.

He said the primary is bi-directional wrap...bi is 2, 2 directions and wrap means wrapped around the former. The bi-directional is one half of the transformer primary is wound in one direction and the other half is then wound in the opposite direction forming 2 coils of opposing magnetic fields, this is wound longitudal to the inductors and secondary.

To make it easy to test only the inhibitor choke needs to be wound, wind it bifilar on a tube and place in the center of a ferrite e-core and dont pick one to small, then wind the primary as described above from inside edge to the center of choke then reverse wire direction to other inside edge. Now wind the secondary over the top of primary in same direction as choke. i used thin wire for choke and secondary and bit thicker for primary.

Use a frequency generator and driver circuit to test, u will need to align the coils including the primary, just short the output and when u still get full voltage its working. If u use a scope i have had some odd effects, on x10 it attenuated the signal (volts adjusted on scope of course) and the ground might cause a problem. Measure voltage across secondary. I used a diode in the circuit with a low forward volt drop.

Now u have a current restricting transformer...happy days!   ;D

h2o this is the transformer i was on about.


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: guruji on February 26, 2011, 02:00:33 PM
Thanks iluminati for your info. Can you please post a diagram?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: illuminati on February 26, 2011, 03:24:00 PM
My drawing is poor and tends to take me hours to produce substandard rubbish so i was really hopeing the text would do, what bit are u not clear on? 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 26, 2011, 08:57:13 PM
Do not worry about that as the figure 6-1 VIC transformer is not to be built unless you are making the injectors as they will not work on the WFC's. Plus I already go over just what bidirectional means and all it is something that is cross wrapped, nothing more. Please I know you mean to help but your making this hard for people to understand. The figure 6-1 VIC Matrix Circuit has a lot more rules that go along with than that of figure 3-23. These people want results not confusion, okay? Please I got this, okay?
In the 8xa circuit the 2 H inductor is a guess that seems to work with the 3 inch overlap capacitors. But there is a way to calculate the exact size needed and that it to fully integrate the time constance (TC) to Meyer's work. For these are very leaky capacitors and the resistance and impedance totals in ohms go towards giving you enough time to be able to charge such a leaky capacitor. The Time Constant (TC) for a capacitor is TC = R x C, where R is resistance in ohms and C is capacitance in farads. This directly relates to what size the chokes need to be in order for the capacitors to be charged, and I am still working through the math as we speak. The inductor TC is also important TC = L / R. As I have been saying these VIC Matrix Circuits look deceptively simple but nothing could be farther from the truth of how they really work.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: guruji on February 26, 2011, 09:49:36 PM
That coil is to wrap three coils bi directional near each other?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: illuminati on February 27, 2011, 12:02:27 AM
guruji

Email me dude  8)

bc109@hotmail.co.uk

Very easy to build this to try out.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 27, 2011, 01:13:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/user/Venturecaplaw#p/u/52/GXcxswDcUbI

http://www.youtube.com/user/Venturecaplaw#p/u/51/-vznuNkEBto

http://www.youtube.com/user/Venturecaplaw#p/u/54/HGgfOqlxWqU

http://www.youtube.com/user/Venturecaplaw#p/u/55/V6xa76IshbE

 

In these videos you will learn these two time constant (TC) formulas

Inductance TC = L / R

Capacitance TC = R x C

And it takes a total time of 5 TC's to fully charge or discharge a inductors current and a capacitors voltage.

 

Now since we are dealing with a leaky capacitor the time it take my electrode pair to discharge is:

5(3778.83 pf x 78.54 ohms) = 2.967893^-7 sec x 5 = 1.48395^-6 sec to fully discharge my capacitor. Not a lot of time, huh?

Now by adding in resistance you gain more time before the capacitor fully discharges.

Example if I add in 40k ohms, which would be all coils added up together, I'd get this: 5(3778.83 pf x 40078.54 ohms) = 7.5724995^-4 sec

And this takes place at the same time the inductor is dumping current into the capacitor as it losses current giving even more time before the capacitor fully discharges.

 
So now you can see that adding in resistance has two purposes, to prevent amp leakage, and to add more time to the capacitors fast discharge time so it isn't too fast. 

 So the bifilar chokes will go to slow this leaky capacitors discharge time down and the resistance will go to slow this leaky capacitors discharge time down. Wow, I learn something new everyday!


We need to calculate the total resistance of the circuit, and due to the way the circuit works we only get to add one resonant value of a choke with this resistance.

 

So that gives us all resistances that are in-line with the capacitor plus the XL of the choke plus the Xc of the capacitor at the resonant frequency. This value is then added to the Time Constant so see if the choke size will give a time that is greater than the frequency time count per second. Remember the maximum pulse rate is always twice the resonant frequency, that means you divide the one pulse time by two.

 

Unfortunately I can't add all the resistance of the wires due to I don't know the resistance per foot data. I only know the 0.125 mm wire is around 24 ohms per foot. I will only have all the data on the chokes after it is built and I put a resistance meter to it to take a reading. So here we go .

 

Planned resonant frequency for me is 1.83k Hz which gives a single pulse time of 5.4645^-4 seconds divide that by two and I get 2.7322^-4 seconds. This is my charge time and it must be less than the capacitor drain time.

 

So starting with the secondary I will be using 263.6 ft of wire at 24 ohms per foot. Which gives me 6326.44 ohms of resistance.

The chokes @ 2 H gives me, 2 x pie x 1830 Hz x 2 H = 22996.46 ohms

The capacitor gives 1 / 2 x pie x 1830 Hz x 3778.83^-12 f = 23015.04 ohms plus 78.54 gives 23093.58 ohms

 

Now to use the TC = R x C formula

TC = (6326.44 + 22996.46 + 23093.58) x 3778.83^-12 = 1.9807^-4 seconds is for one time constant. So it is multiplied by 5 giving me 9.9036^-4 seconds for full discharge time of the capacitor.

This shows me that the 2 H choke will be enough for me to charge the capacitor since 2.7322 is less than 9.9036. With this size choke I will have a voltage drop just over 36.8% between charges so I will go to a larger choke size to improve those numbers.

 

Now at least all of you know how to calculate the value of your chokes so you get a working VIC Matrix Circuit the first time around, no more guessing! 


Enjoy!

h2opower

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: guruji on February 27, 2011, 01:50:52 PM
Hi illuminati I've emailed you. Another thing I built two cells and put them in parallel is this ok or in series bettet?
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Doug1 on February 27, 2011, 02:26:37 PM
Are you basing the time delay on the Meyers video?The last step in the charging curve is very minimal could be +1or2 more sec.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on February 27, 2011, 08:31:59 PM
Hi Doug1 and Everyone,
The way the figure 3-23 VIC works is you get two charging pulses for every pulse given that are 180 degrees out of phase with each other. So what this does for the charging is the once a charge stops the other picks up where it left off, and it does so again and again until the maximum voltage is reached. You can see the charge line in the graph, the time constant in which mines falls under is about 80% in between the first and second time constant. That will try and charge the capacitor to 80% of the voltage, then the next charge comes in at picks up from where the first one left off. With that graph you can actually see the charging set up shown in Meyer's patents. Each step charge is a coming from one of the two chokes and they alternate. First choke charge and at the same time it induces the second choke, when the magnetic field collapses inducing a voltage to the second choke the second choke sends it's charge to the capacitor. Again they are 180 degrees out of phase, and the blocking diode cuts their AC waves to a DC half wave.

Now in the math I posted I wrote in a sort of short hand as I left out all of the x10 as it should read;
"The capacitor gives 1 / 2 x pie x 1830 Hz x 3778.83x10^-12 f = 23015.04 ohms plus 78.54 gives 23093.58 ohms." for each one showing a ^ place in a x10 between the number to get the same answers as I've shown. Sorry about that I write in short hand when doing things like this.

So now everyone should have a very good understanding to be able to make their own figure 3-23 VIC Matrix Circuits. Don't forget to match the secondary's distributive capacitance with that of your electrode set's capacitance. Plus to make sure the coupling capacitance of the chokes is greater than the capacitance of your electrode set. One figure 3-23 VIC Matrix Circuit per electrode set please, okay? Another thing you must use some sort of resistance wire for the chokes and especially for the secondary to aid in slowing down the leakage time of the electrode set(capacitor).

Your all set to start replicating Meyer's work now, so let the Energy Revolution Begin!
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: wings on May 02, 2011, 02:46:26 PM
This is a video of Stan Meyer's estate showing some of his known items and a couple of ones you may not know about.

Interesting the toroid !

http://vimeo.com/13324978
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on May 04, 2011, 07:10:26 PM
Hi Wings,

Thanks for the video, though I have seen it before many times. Yes, the "Electrical Particle Generator" (EPG), not toroids, I know all about those. I think I can even recreate them if I had the funding as I do understand how they work. Right now I am just running out of funds for all projects I have going. If any of you would like to help you can donate here: http://www.truegreensolutions.net/index.php?p=1_7_Donations thanks everyone for keeping hope alive for even those of us like me need a hand now and then. Thanks for your support!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Torana on May 19, 2011, 02:50:58 AM
Your not going to like this one...
If your planned  Reso freq = 1830 hz , the plates alternate at 1830 cps AC based on LC timing.
If you move to a larger L , the freq drops and X changes.
L + C are passive components that react differently to AC = REACTANCE
Xc and XL are 180 degrees to each other and cancel each other
2 pi formulas are sine , circular not pulse.
**A choke does not stop DC...... Electrons

6326.44  +  22996.46  +  23015.04    + 78.54  X  3.77883 nf...
   R l      + 2 pi f L      + 1/ (2 pi f C ) +  stan fig??  X  C

78.54 OHMS is one of Stans tricks that out lived him and unfortunately stuck to the blanket.

**specific constants are measured at specific temperatures...78.54 @ 25 degrees centigrade, the same sample @ 20 degrees C = 80.37 , the same sample @ 100 degrees C = 55.33 ....
The Dielectric constant CANT be measured in OHMS and NEVER has been ,HOW ? ? ? ,ones a temperature the other is a ratio.

Resistivity ,R ,X ,Z are measured in Ohms but R is the only one used in RC time constant.
If you want 1830 hz ,youll need a power supply and it will need a timing circuit wether its 555 , TL494 or what ever ,it will also need an RC combo on the timing pins.

Stans WFC tech brief has mis info through out , ANYONE can go thru and check .

Have a look thru this site at RC timing and theres a section on tuned circuits.

http://www.learn-about-electronics.com/rc-time-constant.html

Theres alot of people putting in an honest effort into researching Meyers but surely there needs to be an honest approach to the info he was peddling.  Put it under the microscope .
There is an actual possibility that the info is BOGUS and not even Jesus can change that .
Square one is there for everyone and unfortunately we're all there but drifting down the same path that a dead man pointed down isnt going to help .

..as you were... and NO Im not kicking you or anyone else in the guts.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: illuminati on May 19, 2011, 06:27:45 AM
Hi Torana

I think there are a lot of problems with understanding stans technology, but researching his history leaves me with very little doubt he had achieved the efficient water to fuel process.
Meyer was assasinated his technology removed from his property and stephen meyer went on to start the company xogen, a oil company friendly way of efficiently splitting water. Stephen will say nothing of use to us about stans technology which leaves us with just the patents and here i think could be part of the problem, either meyer left out vital information leaving parts of his process unprotected, hidden it so well nobody can work it out or before the release of his patents they had been altered. Lets face it if you murder stan there`s no way you will allow patents with enough information to be released, there needs to be some serious lateral thinking to work this out.
Torana like you i am stuck with his vic, i have found out how he gets the high voltages in the wfc and it is not his charge choke but the current restriction is proveing a problem, a clue maybe with his early technology that ravvi has replicated.

 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on May 19, 2011, 10:48:06 AM
Your not going to like this one...
If your planned  Reso freq = 1830 hz , the plates alternate at 1830 cps AC based on LC timing.
If you move to a larger L , the freq drops and X changes.
L + C are passive components that react differently to AC = REACTANCE
Xc and XL are 180 degrees to each other and cancel each other
2 pi formulas are sine , circular not pulse.
**A choke does not stop DC...... Electrons

6326.44  +  22996.46  +  23015.04    + 78.54  X  3.77883 nf...
   R l      + 2 pi f L      + 1/ (2 pi f C ) +  stan fig??  X  C

78.54 OHMS is one of Stans tricks that out lived him and unfortunately stuck to the blanket.

**specific constants are measured at specific temperatures...78.54 @ 25 degrees centigrade, the same sample @ 20 degrees C = 80.37 , the same sample @ 100 degrees C = 55.33 ....
The Dielectric constant CANT be measured in OHMS and NEVER has been ,HOW ? ? ? ,ones a temperature the other is a ratio.

Resistivity ,R ,X ,Z are measured in Ohms but R is the only one used in RC time constant.
If you want 1830 hz ,youll need a power supply and it will need a timing circuit wether its 555 , TL494 or what ever ,it will also need an RC combo on the timing pins.

Stans WFC tech brief has mis info through out , ANYONE can go thru and check .

Have a look thru this site at RC timing and theres a section on tuned circuits.

http://www.learn-about-electronics.com/rc-time-constant.html

Theres alot of people putting in an honest effort into researching Meyers but surely there needs to be an honest approach to the info he was peddling.  Put it under the microscope .
There is an actual possibility that the info is BOGUS and not even Jesus can change that .
Square one is there for everyone and unfortunately we're all there but drifting down the same path that a dead man pointed down isnt going to help .

..as you were... and NO Im not kicking you or anyone else in the guts.

I was wondering just how long it would take you to openly challenge me directly, took a lot of guts to do so I must admit given the high level of science I have uncovered about the work of Stanley A. Meyer to this date. Your Meyer hating ass will get toss in the garbage with me I am afraid. Sorry for the grown up words but I have read all of your post and you do nothing to aid humanity in anyway shape or form towards becoming energy independent.

Now for some missing key information on why no one has gotten the figure 3-23 isolated VIC transformers to work correctly in charging the WFC's they built for them. For starters people have been building them incorrectly all of these years. As what is seen in the patents is not draw correctly and some key information is missing. Secondly they have all been wiring the WFC's incorrectly due to no fault of their own as that information was just not given in the patents.

In the patent it says to wind a core with 200 turn primary, 600 turns secondary, and 100 turns for each choke, correct? The key missing information is the build of the WFC that thing is to be connected too as hooking it up to one electrode pair will result in failure. Why? The transformer can't handle the load the single capacitor places on it and everyone knows if you overload a transformer it simply will not work, correct? That transformer has to be connected to an eleven electrode capacitor pair set up all wired in series. This has to be done this way to bring the load down so the transformer can charge up the WFC. With each electrode pair wired in series the load seen by the transformer is lowered. Now this is where the 78.54 ohms you like to say is bogus comes in play for it is impedance matching the same as done in a typical car stereo set up. Now in a car audio system if you place to high of a load on the system it will burn out, but in a transformer if that is done it simply will not turn on. And as many of you out there can agree when you hooked this transformer (for those who built it) to the one electrode pair it would only put out around 4 volts, correct? It never dawn on anyone to lighten the load on the transformer by adding more electrode pairs connecting them all in series as far as I can tell to lighten the load on the transformer so it could power up and charge the WFC. That would be the same as you getting an audio amp rated at 8 ohms and then you placed a 1 one load on it. If you want the transformer to work you have to lighten the load and use 8 ohms or more in the example I gave, correct? 78.54 ohms is to low for the transformer to power up so you have to add more capacitors in series to add more resistance to the system until you get to a point where the transformer will work, get it? Meyer placed eleven capacitors in series which gives a total resistance of 863.94 ohms of resistance, thus cutting the load on the transformer so it can charge up the capacitors. Every capacitor has a resistance element to is construction and a water capacitor is no exception to the rule.

Interestingly enough that arrangement of the WFC restricts amps and allows voltage to take over as it is not to different from connecting some audio speakers in series which cuts the load on the amplifier, correct? Voltage remains constant but amps are divided among the capacitors thus cutting the load to the transformer to the point where it can charge up the capacitors. That math I will leave up to the individual to calculate. Now for visual proof of what I am talking about from Stanley A. Meyer's own WFC that ran his dune buggy on nothing but water as a source of fuel.

http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/fig3-25resonantcavityB.jpg
http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/resonant_cavity_tube.jpg
http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/Resonant_Cavity_4.jpg

@Torana, Stay off of my thread as if you have noticed I stay off of yours out of respect, so return the favor.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: MasterPlaster on May 26, 2011, 02:24:51 PM

@H2power,
This patent may be of interest:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3522162.pdf

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on June 09, 2011, 11:32:03 PM
Here is a video I made wiring the WFC in series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqVIJOa6NsU
Note this is pure distilled water no caustics of any kind are being used.

From this experiment I learned that the more capacitors wired in series the more efficient the process becomes. Unlike the prior state of the art with Dr. Faraday's electrolysis, when increasing the surface area of the plates in this manor decreases amp use which is the direct opposite of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis. I am currently building a new 12 capacitor WFC to see the full effects of this process. From what I have observed this is like impedance matching with an audio amplifier. Example, say you have an audio amplifier rated at 10 ohms and you only have 1 ohm speakers in which to connect to the amplifier. What happens if you connect all the speakers in parallel to the amplifier? It will burn out correct? What happens if you connect just one speaker to the amplifier? Again it will burn out or just not be able to power the load. The only way to get the amplifier working correctly is to wire ten or more 1 ohm speakers in series, correct? That my friends is the reason why so many have tried and failed at replicating Meyer's method of water decomposition.

As you some of you might have guessed by now, this new WFC is to be used to power up my test car, along with the Gas Processor, and needed circuitry. So you can see I am getting prepared what are you doing to get prepared?

In the attachment is a photo of how to calculate these series capacitor arrays. The resistance is additive just like any series resistance and the capacitance is the reciprocal of capacitances. So as you add more capacitors you decrease the capacitance and increase the resistance of the circuit. Remember the WFC is a part of the VIC circuit just as Meyer says. The VIC transformer has to be matched to a load that it can power, and one capacitor is too great of a load as those of you that have given this a try have already experienced. When you go to drive it with that great of a load all that happens is the transformer gets hot and only about 2-5 volts are seen at the capacitor correct? Now build a WFC with ten or more capacitors wired in series and that transformer might have a chance of powering the new series connected WFC array you just made.

But remember to get the needed power to power an engine you need to build the Gas Processor.

Enjoy breaking down water the Meyer way,
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: MasterPlaster on June 10, 2011, 02:23:02 PM
Quote from: Don
Let me give you some info to help understand Stans work.
1st: Stan had three water cells.
1- variable plate cell (non resonance)
2-multi tube cell,alternator powered (also non resonance)
3-resonanct cavity,11 tube cell (the only resonance cell)
The first two cells were amp restricting cells.They only show amp restriction and no resonance action.

2nd: The biggest mistake most people make is that they think the multi tube demo cell worked on resonance,It didn't.

3rd:The next mistake they make is trying to drive a multi tube cell with a frequency driver to find resonance.It won't work,back to 2nd fact.

4th: Another mistake people make is mixing different technologies together, 3rd fact.
This one is the bigest thing I see people doing wrong.Trying to use a VIC coil with the multi tube cell.They are two different technologies.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on June 10, 2011, 08:20:06 PM
Let me give you some info to help understand Stans work.
1st: Stan had three water cells.
1- variable plate cell (non resonance)
2-multi tube cell,alternator powered (also non resonance)
3-resonanct cavity,11 tube cell (the only resonance cell)
The first two cells were amp restricting cells.They only show amp restriction and no resonance action.

2nd: The biggest mistake most people make is that they think the multi tube demo cell worked on resonance,It didn't.

3rd:The next mistake they make is trying to drive a multi tube cell with a frequency driver to find resonance.It won't work,back to 2nd fact.

4th: Another mistake people make is mixing different technologies together, 3rd fact.
This one is the bigest thing I see people doing wrong.Trying to use a VIC coil with the multi tube cell.They are two different technologies.
 
 



He is wrong and once I have the new WFC built I will prove it. I am not like everyone else as I approach this technology from the view of science and I found where the energy is coming from to power things on water as a source of fuel. But the picture I posted shows exactly what I am doing is the same thing Meyer did to his WFC exciter array that ran his dune buggy. This is something everyone over looked since they are trying to duplicate and not understanding the technology. In the photo you can clearly see that the WFC that ran his dune buggy is wired up in series. Do the math and you will see why that is important, though I did put up enough examples to show third graders how it relates to the water for fuel technology.

As seen in the photo the WFC is a part of the VIC. I follow the science not the man, the science is where one learns this technology not the patents. The patents help but don't give everything as no patent really ever does. But Meyer did tell us that it was wired in series in the technical brief on the first few pages.
Quote
page 1-1 SMTB
LC Circuit
Resonant Charging Choke (C) in series with Excitor-array (El/E2) forms an inductor-capacitor circuit
(LC) since the Excitor-Array (ER) acts or performs as an capacitor during pulsing operations, as
illustrated in Figure (1-2) as to Figure (1-1).
The Dielectric Properties (insulator to the flow of amps) of natural water (dielectric constant being
78.54 @ 25c) between the electrical plates (El/E2) forms the capacitor (ER). Water now becomes part
of the Voltage Intensifier Circuit in the form of "resistance" between electrical ground and pulsefrequency
positive-potential ... helping to prevent electron flow within the pulsing circuit (AA) of
Figure 1-1.

As you can see I am not making this up out of thin air.

h2opower actively fighting for your energy independence.

http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/Resonant_Cavity_4.jpg
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on July 16, 2011, 12:54:06 AM
Hi Everyone,

Here is a video I put together showing the construction of the new 12 capacitors exciter array being built, enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avtjOFc5Gdc

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on July 16, 2011, 07:32:46 PM
Very Nice Cell.  I assume that you have "Tuned" these cells via exacting methods during the build?  I do like the way the seals allow direct exposure of the outer tubes but I would think this "O-Ring" type of sealing would dampen physical vibration and alter the true resonance point.  Yes or No?

( Yes, I am still watching, learning, lurking and interested. )

I might accept that the "Resonance" would be totally "Electrical" in nature, but noticed in several reads of many areas (I have no true opinion on Meyer himself, as the info is the important part.) that separate units were used for each tube in the "resonance" build.  If all were in series, why would there be more than one unit needed?  (There were many on the Buggy...)

I'm not trying to be negative, just trying to understand...

Thanks for info, as I had thought you were one of the people that first brought that little fact to light.  Maybe my memory is failing me?

Keep up the great work...

Hi Loner,

I think you are talking about Meyer having 9 VIC transformers correct? That part took me some time to figure out. But now I got it, he had them hook up three and three, that is to say three of them where hooked in parallel and those three sets where hooked up out of phase in a three phase arrangement. Then he went and added three diodes to make it a six phase pulse going to the WFC.

Here is my reasoning on this; Voltage is pressure correct? So I give you this analogy: A pressure washer with a nozzle tip that needs a certain amount of pressure before it will allow water to flow is the same as this in a way. If one where to pulse the trigger of the pressure washer pulling it on and releasing it off over and over again the water flow through the nozzle will be in pulses as well, correct? That is what I think I am seeing since with this set up as voltage is pressure and the single phase pulsing is not holding the pressure constant to keep ionizing the water molecules in a consistent manor just like the pressure washer. That is the need to have this all in three phase pulsing with a six phase rectifier hooked up to it as Meyer shows in figure 8-11b in the SMTB. The object is to keep the voltage pressure constant so that when the pressure is enough to start ionizing the water molecules it does so at a constant rate at the voltage pressure needed to start the ionization. Since it is voltage dependent and not amp dependent when the voltages are raised the rate of ionization increases, but current draw I have notices thus far, seems to slow the process down. I have already preformed experiments on this and noticed just what this thing is doing, I am currently modifying an 8xa circuit to have three phase output should have it done next week some time as the parts for it are in the mail.

Now since the Gas Processor and the WFC practically are the same device just dealing with a different medium the same circuit update needs to be made to the Gas Processor is my thinking. Now I found a circuit in some of Meyer's photos that are for sale and that circuit has the same flip flops I am using to turn the circuit into a three phase pulsing system, I think it is titled "DistCon."

With this set up I can take the voltages up to 2k and it only draws 0.33 amps in resonance but I have six times as less the production Meyer talks about and the only thing that made any sense to me was I have six times as less the pulsing phase rate as Meyer has. For I can get burst of gas output as low as 0.01 amps at 215 volts using pure distilled water but the output is random in the capacitors. I am certain that this is due to my pulsing circuit only having one phase as that makes the most sense. Anyway that is where the science is taking me right now and I should have some results next week if all goes well.

As for it being a vibrational resonance I really do not see that working in any of Meyer's work as he holds the tubes from both the bottom and the top and no way in the world will that do any kind of vibrational ringing. Meyer also used rubber O'rings in his design so again I would go as far as to say the vibrational theory just doesn't hold up and could possibly be miss information. For just take a good hard look at the WFC that ran his dune buggy and you will see it has springs in direct contact with the electrodes at the bottom and the outer tube has an O'ring holding it in place at the top. Nothing will vibrate much under those conditions as springs work to dampen vibration as that is part of their purpose on automobiles. Rubber, as you already stated, works to dampen vibration also, so again their theory just doesn't hold up given the evidence of Meyer's design.

Hope that helps,

h2opower

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: highwater on July 20, 2011, 06:59:52 PM
h20 power. In post # 248. You saidThe vic transformers were hooked up three and three. That is to say 3 were hooked in parallel.and those 3 were hooked up out of phase. I can see and understand fron the figure 8-11b where the first three go to the outer tube. But dont understand (those three were hooked up out of phase in a three phase arrangement). Could you explain this to me better so I can understand this a little better. I am working on the alternator version now. Also if there were 9 vics in total would the stator have to be center tapped to put in 3 more vics and then put in three more off the 3 neutral legs. trying my best to understand this .Thanks.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on July 20, 2011, 08:33:53 PM
h20 power. In post # 248. You saidThe vic transformers were hooked up three and three. That is to say 3 were hooked in parallel.and those 3 were hooked up out of phase. I can see and understand fron the figure 8-11b where the first three go to the outer tube. But dont understand (those three were hooked up out of phase in a three phase arrangement). Could you explain this to me better so I can understand this a little better. I am working on the alternator version now. Also if there were 9 vics in total would the stator have to be center tapped to put in 3 more vics and then put in three more off the 3 neutral legs. trying my best to understand this .Thanks.

Hi Highwater,

If you have the alternator version you should wire it just like shown in figure 8-11 B found in the SMTB I posted some good information for you here: http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showpost.php?p=3914&postcount=72.

For what I am talking about is the system Stanley A. Meyer used to run his dune buggy before he switch over to the injector system. There he had nine VIC transformers connected to one 11 capacitor WFC that had only 10 capacitors being used all wired in series so it only had one power input line for the nine VIC transformers too connect to. So in order to figure out just how he wired all the VIC up I look to what he had done in the past with the figure 8-11 illustrations. Now I have changed how the three VIC transformers are connected together but have to test it all out but the rewiring looks more to the point than that of Meyer's and should do the same thing just without the voltage loss I think I see with the VIC transformer set up.

Since you are going to use the alternator version note that the rpm is where resonance is found in that set up and the power going to the rotor can be pulsed but does not control the resonance the speed of the turning of the rotor does. You are going to have to put in a steady input power and very the speed until resonance is found. From there you can then raise and lower the voltage at will. You will find Meyer made a drive motor PWM that used a coarse and fine adjustments just for that purpose, and the guy's job on the back of the dune buggy was to keep it in resonance while he was driving in the early days.

Hope that helps,
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 13, 2011, 08:54:22 AM
Hi H2opower
that looks like a nicely built cell set - i notice that the design appears to work like a capacitor in that the only area of water contact is between the 2 tubes - what about the centerer of the inner tube - is it left open because i was wondering how you circulated the water from the top to bottom sections of the cell.

With the resonant cavity drawing, diagram attached, where is the earth symbolized connection on the water inlet connected to.? I'm unclear of its purpose - is it for setting a electrical polarity on the water entering the cavity.?

the question: On the VIC coil driving the cell - has anyone contemplated what would happen in the circuit if the secondary had a centerer tap and that centerer tap electrically connects to the water in the cell. ?

What I was curious about was the earthing/grounding of the inlet, and as the vic/chokes/cell are effectively a closed circuit.

Even referring to fig 8-11 of the rotary vic on the alternator setup, the diagram clearly says - water bath electrical ground 0v.

For a ground point for the water, as seen on the inlet of the "resonant cavity", is that applicable to a WFC and if so could a ground, zero point, be utilized by a centerer tap on the secondary for as an example for reference, as seen in a simple dual rail psu circuit.??

I can see 2 diagrams that refer to the water being 0v, wfc422da and fig 8-11. Writing by others suggests that on a vic circuit and cell they can get high voltages across the electrodes/plates but little output, so might an area to explore be the potential of the watter as in the 2 Meyer's diagrams?

 is a cell a water bath and resonant cavity.?


BTW - anyone find the kontera.com and infolinks.com underlining of "hotwords in posts and the forum a nuisance? - use Noscript with firefox to prevent the scripts for konterra.com and infolinks.com from being used -  makes the page much cleaner to read

Hi wfchobby,

The ground to me just is showing water is being used as a ground and not being grounded to an outside source as that would mess the whole process up. Water is also being used as a resistor as well as a dielectric by Meyer. I added some new information on the topic here: http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174 that you might find very useful.

In the ER 10 design the center electrodes are solid and have been machined to allow water to flow through the system just as Meyer's dune buggy ER. A few changes where made to the original design but it is fairly close to that of the dune buggy's ER. As of right now I don't see anything else like it on the market so I guess I am the first to make something like that of Meyer's new stuff before he switch over to the direct injection system.

I hope you find the heretical builder link useful as I put a lot of time into adding science to the work of Meyer for everyone to learn and know. I am not perfect but I think I did an okay job in trying to show the science behind the patents.

Let me know if it helped or not?

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: wfchobby on September 14, 2011, 12:00:20 PM
Hi H2opower, i like your work, nice and neat.
Thank you for the hereticalbuilders link - very useful thanks will take several reads to absorb. To my mind with the limited space in engine bays the injectors are the way to go because the multiple cells are just too bulky, im interested to see how you progress with the injector system.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on June 08, 2013, 05:49:49 PM
http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985 (http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985)
 With this technology we can take the control of energy away from those that sell energy and give it to the people. If you're reading this can you see it in your heart to support this technology at a time when it needs you the most? Even a $5 donation helps for just as a drop can eventually fill a bucket your donations can make this a successful campaign and a new brighter future will be our new way of life.


Thanks Everyone for your support,
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: markdansie on June 08, 2013, 06:15:15 PM
Would appreciate some data like power in gas out.
I hope your experiments work out.
Here is a recent article I wrote for those new to the water for fuel concept.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/05/water-powered-cars-and-generators/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/05/water-powered-cars-and-generators/)
Kind Regards
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on June 09, 2013, 12:35:19 AM
Would appreciate some data like power in gas out.
I hope your experiments work out.
Here is a recent article I wrote for those new to the water for fuel concept.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/05/water-powered-cars-and-generators/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/05/water-powered-cars-and-generators/)
Kind Regards


Hi Mark,


I want you to take a close look at what I tell you in this reply as I assure you that I am talking like no one else you have ever heard from before, okay? Dig into your notes and see if you can find a single person saying the things I have said in this post.


The way Meyer's technology works is just like an ozone generator that makes use of an ionizing electrical field for the most part.
An ozone generator draws in O2 molecules and breaks them down into monatomic Oxygen gas atoms by way of ionization. Nothing comes together inside of the ionizing electrical field but once these monatomic gases are back in our atmosphere they quickly find O2 molecules to form O3 with. Meyer's technology is just about the same but this time water molecules H2O are being separated by way of ionization. Unlike O2 molecules these atoms need to be sparked off in order to recombine but they are broken down in the exact same way.
Now to prevent these monatomic gas atoms from reaching a stable state longer the electrons are taken away from the system by the electron extraction circuit. This is how Meyer's technology actually works no BS. The atoms within the water molecules are ionized and those electrons furthest away from the protons are the first in line to get stripped away from the atoms, but in this case those atoms have the job of holding the water molecules together. Now the water molecules can withstand to lose one electron and remain intact, part of it's own self ionization properties, but the loss of two and it simply falls apart into its component atoms hydrogen and oxygen.



It has taken me over six years to figure this technology out and more than another year afterwards to get all the items together to build it correctly. In the most basic of explanations a lot of energy was added to the system electronically as hydrogen still seems to perform the role of an energy carrier as the water that it is being used from is not destroyed in the process. In order to run a car another device Meyer calls the, "Gas Processor," is needed which will remove a small amount of mass from the oxygen atoms being drawn in through the intake system and in physics if you decrease the mass of an atom you increase it's energy potential and how many oxygen molecules are being drawn into the intake system? As you can now begin to see a lot of instability was added to the system. This is not Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method but a whole new take on breaking the bonds of the water molecules and how to make best use of the gases thereafter. In this system there are no bubblers being used as that would stabilize that unstable gases which would result in a loss of energy.


There are only two sides to this coin. One, on the side of this technology and the energy independence it brings, and the other side of the coin being on the side of the systems of energy enslavement from which we are currently all trapped in right now. I am sorry but those are your choices love them or hate them that is just reality as you will support one by default rather you like it or not. Sure there have been a lot of frauds out there trying to make a buck off of everyone but listen to the way I talk about this technology as it is something you truly haven't heard of before.


But note plans are being worked on to showcase this technology so that you can actually view it working correctly, okay? As you do have a right to see this technology in action, just bear with me as things are being put together for you, okay? Thanks


Job 38: 22-23 http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985 (http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985)
Take care and God Bless,
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: markdansie on June 09, 2013, 05:58:00 AM
Hi if it is any help, if you go to the Stan Myer forums and HHO forums in Europe and Asia they did a lot of work with ionizing the air and with ozone generators.
I am sure their observations and experiments would be helpful.
Like I said all the best with your project, I look forward when you can show us a motor running or data in regards to the power in and power out. Please do not make assumptions to what I have or have not seen, 90% I am under NDA.
Your work is interesting, but I will not debate the accademic merrit of your assumptions. I ma happy to await the outcoems
Kind regards
Mark
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on June 15, 2013, 08:52:14 PM
I'm not trying to confuse your efforts here, but I believe there are similarities between Stan Meyer's and Bob Boyce's technologies.  Resonance is involved, but IMO the frequencies are variable and have little if anything to do with molecular or atomic frequency.

All Meyers methods involve robbing atoms of their valence electrons to nullify covalent molecular bonds.
The VIC steals the valence electrons, then applies an electric field to finish the job.

Meyers made the statement that water is an insulator, and everyone said "he's cracked!"
Well, Meyers wasn't cracked.
There are certain circumstances where water does act as an insulator.

Based on the contents of Meyers' patents, and the wealth of information they contain, along with the doubt and confusion encountered by those who try to decypher them, IMO, either Meyers was a genius and excelled at protecting his technology, or, Meyers was lead by some higher intelligence, and he blindly followed without fully understanding the technology he delivered.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: wings on June 18, 2013, 12:39:53 PM
http://www.mareasistemi.com/didattica%2010.html
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on June 18, 2013, 06:15:51 PM
I'm not trying to confuse your efforts here, but I believe there are similarities between Stan Meyer's and Bob Boyce's technologies.  Resonance is involved, but IMO the frequencies are variable and have little if anything to do with molecular or atomic frequency.

All Meyers methods involve robbing atoms of their valence electrons to nullify covalent molecular bonds.
The VIC steals the valence electrons, then applies an electric field to finish the job.

Meyers made the statement that water is an insulator, and everyone said "he's cracked!"
Well, Meyers wasn't cracked.
There are certain circumstances where water does act as an insulator.

Based on the contents of Meyers' patents, and the wealth of information they contain, along with the doubt and confusion encountered by those who try to decypher them, IMO, either Meyers was a genius and excelled at protecting his technology, or, Meyers was lead by some higher intelligence, and he blindly followed without fully understanding the technology he delivered.


Hi Roger,


With all due respects what Stanley Meyer and Bob Boyce did are totally different. Bob Boyce's system makes use of KOH or can be substituted with some other form of water additive to make the water more conductive. With Meyer's work the water is untreated in any way, IE, not salts to be used of any kind. I have been working on this technology since 2006 and with Gods help I finally understood just what was going on back in March of 2012. Right now I know it's hard for people to believe there is another way to break the bonds of the water molecules than the standard old 1860's technology shows us how in our science textbooks, but this is another way to do the job that follows how life breaks the bonds of the water molecules.



These two different technologies you talk about are as far apart as they can be in how they work to break the bonds of the water molecules into it's component atoms being hydrogen and oxygen that make it up. With me Job 38: 22-23 leads my thoughts and I ask God for help in understanding this technology. Now I won't sit down and tell everyone just how it all works but I am trying to bring this technology to market through True Green Solutions so that the people can have a choice to opt out of the current system of energy enslavement and begin to take charge of their own energy needs.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on June 18, 2013, 06:23:44 PM
http://www.mareasistemi.com/didattica%2010.html (http://www.mareasistemi.com/didattica%2010.html)


This is a hybrid system and what True Green Solutions is doing is a total fuel replacement system: http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985 (http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985)

Right now we need your help at True Green Solutions so this technology can make it to market which is why the crowdfunding campaign was started in the first place to give the people a chance to vote in a "Direct Democracy" style for a future that leads away from energy enslavement to one of energy independence. So if you truly want to be free now is the time to show your support with at least a minimum amount donation as just as a drop can eventually fill a bucket so will your donations help this campaign to be a success in the end. Thanks for your support as right now the fight for energy independence for the common man has begun.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on June 20, 2013, 01:00:32 PM
Hey H2Opower,

I don't disagree that the basic methods used by Meyer and Boyce were very different, Boyce using an electrolyte and harmonics, and who accidentally discovered the anomaly when a rectifier in his alternator shorted, but I think there are some subtle similarities in how water interacts with the electrical energies being applied, and the sequence of events which allow stresses to be leveraged, culminating in water breaking down much more efficiently.

I have applied a differential voltage (40v) to two electrodes spaced 3mm apart, and verified current was flowing between those electrodes, then applied a signal to those same two electrodes in combination with the applied differential voltage, and found that the current had stopped flowing between the electrodes.  The applied signal was approx. 20kv at approx. 10khz, which was the electrical resonance of the complete circuit itself.  Reduce the amount of water in the cell and the resonant frequency goes up, add water to the cell and the resonant frequency goes down.  Reduce the inductance, and the voltage goes down, while the frequency goes up.  Upon shutting off the signal, the current began flowing between the two electrodes again.

I don't believe this method of breaking down water into useable fuel was the most efficient Meyer devised.  His later patents discussed ionizing air, then mixing that ionized air with atomized water (steam would serve) where the ionized nitrogen would rob the valence electrons from the hydrogen and oxygen making up the water molecule, and the nitrogen would then combine with the hydrogen and oxygen, forming both nitrous-oxide and ammonia, in a readily combustible mixture.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: magpwr on June 20, 2013, 06:16:13 PM
Hi everyone,

Lets cut the chase.This guy Ravi have successfully replicated close to Meyers HHO generator and consume only 6watt(12v x 0.5A) of power.
Please take note he was not selling anything.

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

Go to the youtube description beneath the video and download the pdf which contain the detailed steps from conditioning HHO 316L stainless steel and etc.

"Please download and replicate quickly."




Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on June 21, 2013, 12:44:43 PM
I remember when the Ravi story originally came out, and everyone was hoping to find the reason why their attempts at replicating Meyer's technology had failed.  Everyone poured over the pictures, circuitry, and what little documentation was forthcoming, but to no avail.  Ravi appeared to have stumbled upon success with no rational explanation.  I'm convinced that even Ravi couldn't duplicate his own success since he couldn't adequately explain what he did that was different.

If one goes back and looks at all the material Meyer produced concerning his successful models, you'll find early models where he was using 3 electrodes.   In my research, I believe I have found the reason he used 3 electrodes.  I have discovered that water molecules bind together to form conduction paths, and as long as current continues to flow through these conduction paths, the molecules stay aggressively locked within these paths, and will resist making new paths.  Thus Meyer's statements concerning the insulative qualities of water.  No one could understand why Meyer would make such statements, since everyone knows water conducts electricity.  I believe this is the key to Meyer's success which everyone has overlooked.

As one continues down this path of reasoning, a sequence of events have to take place to break down water.
1) Apply a 1st electric potential that will lock the water molecules into a configuration that makes them vulnerable to perpendicular forces.
2) Apply a 2nd electric potential perpendicular to the configuration of the conduction paths formed in step 1.
3) Once a number of molecules have broken, and free molecules re-align with the 2nd electric potential, shut down the 2nd electric potential.
4) repeat step 1.

Each of Meyer's models which involves electrodes submerged in water use this method or sequence of events.
Thus the need for pulsing electricity to the electrodes.
It's similar to the domino effect.
If one wants to demonstrate the domino effect, steps have to be taken.
Set the dominos up in a predetermined configuration.
Apply a force in a direction that is calculated to take advantage of a known weakness and the dominos fall.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: TheCell on June 21, 2013, 01:42:11 PM
Frequency 22,3 GHz :
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/propulsion/gas-water-waterfuel-hho-technology-11695-9.html#post326748
Puharich  mentions this frequency at 35:46 - 37:03 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEBGI198CmQ

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on June 22, 2013, 05:26:20 AM
Thanks for the links Cell!

Interesting characters on that boat forum.

You won't get an argument out of me concerning what effects a 22,3 GHz electromagnetic signal might have on water.  I have little useable knowledge for working with those frequencies, other than the methods are more technical and less forgiving.  A lot of precision goes into circuitry capable of operating at those frequencies since stray capacitance has a big impact on operation, let alone performance.  And, one certainly doesn't want to carry any antique flash bulbs in one's pockets when working around that type of equipment.

Meyer's methods operate at lower frequencies, and so, don't need RF shielding.

Meyer appears to have found a more forgiving way of applying leverage at the molecular level.  It doesn't require high precision or power.  Meyer's methods appear to be based on leverage against an entrained target, and regauging after that target has been dismantled.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: TheCell on June 22, 2013, 06:59:26 PM
Puharich was the predecessor of Stanley Meyer and mentions this frequency in the yt vid, which he generates by and 'highly nonlinear load' , that means he is generating this frequency by harmonics of a much lower frequency.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on June 23, 2013, 10:27:48 AM
Would be great if I could find documentation, pictures, and diagrams detailing how one might replicate Puharich's technology.

I read what I could find of Puharich's work some years ago, but don't recall finding anything that went into much depth.  Time and mileage take their toll on memories, so if I did find information that illuminated a clear path to success, afraid I'm not able to recall it, and apparently, I also failed to act on it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on June 24, 2013, 07:23:40 PM
I remember when the Ravi story originally came out, and everyone was hoping to find the reason why their attempts at replicating Meyer's technology had failed.  Everyone poured over the pictures, circuitry, and what little documentation was forthcoming, but to no avail.  Ravi appeared to have stumbled upon success with no rational explanation.  I'm convinced that even Ravi couldn't duplicate his own success since he couldn't adequately explain what he did that was different.

If one goes back and looks at all the material Meyer produced concerning his successful models, you'll find early models where he was using 3 electrodes.   In my research, I believe I have found the reason he used 3 electrodes.  I have discovered that water molecules bind together to form conduction paths, and as long as current continues to flow through these conduction paths, the molecules stay aggressively locked within these paths, and will resist making new paths.  Thus Meyer's statements concerning the insulative qualities of water.  No one could understand why Meyer would make such statements, since everyone knows water conducts electricity.  I believe this is the key to Meyer's success which everyone has overlooked.

As one continues down this path of reasoning, a sequence of events have to take place to break down water.
1) Apply a 1st electric potential that will lock the water molecules into a configuration that makes them vulnerable to perpendicular forces.
2) Apply a 2nd electric potential perpendicular to the configuration of the conduction paths formed in step 1.
3) Once a number of molecules have broken, and free molecules re-align with the 2nd electric potential, shut down the 2nd electric potential.
4) repeat step 1.

Each of Meyer's models which involves electrodes submerged in water use this method or sequence of events.
Thus the need for pulsing electricity to the electrodes.
It's similar to the domino effect.
If one wants to demonstrate the domino effect, steps have to be taken.
Set the dominos up in a predetermined configuration.
Apply a force in a direction that is calculated to take advantage of a known weakness and the dominos fall.


This was copied from above:
"The way Meyer's technology works is just like an ozone generator that makes use of an ionizing electrical field for the most part. An ozone generator draws in O2 molecules and breaks them down into monatomic Oxygen gas atoms by way of ionization. Nothing comes together inside of the ionizing electrical field but once these monatomic gases are back in our atmosphere they quickly find O2 molecules to form O3 with. Meyer's technology is just about the same but this time water molecules H2O are being separated by way of ionization. Unlike O2 molecules these atoms need to be sparked off in order to recombine but they are broken down in the exact same way.Now to prevent these monatomic gas atoms from reaching a stable state longer the electrons are taken away from the system by the electron extraction circuit. This is how Meyer's technology actually works no BS. The atoms within the water molecules are ionized and those electrons furthest away from the protons are the first in line to get stripped away from the atoms, but in this case those atoms have the job of holding the water molecules together. Now the water molecules can withstand to lose one electron and remain intact, part of it's own self ionization properties, but the loss of two and it simply falls apart into its component atoms hydrogen and oxygen."


This is a layman's explanation of just how Meyer's technology actually works, sorry I can't go into more details than this but again this is how it truly works. Note this technology is very different from Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. It has taken me several years to figure out the science behind the patents and now I am ready to bring this technology to market and have started a crowdfunding campaign so that I can get the funding needed to get the wheels of manufacturing going: [size=78%]http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985 (http://www.newenergyfunding.com/campaign/detail/985)[/size]

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on June 29, 2013, 05:53:02 PM
h20power,

You sir have hit the nail squarely on the head!
And, both you and myself are correct!
I am just attacking this technology from another valid aspect.
Yes, the water molecules have to be ionized to weaken the covalent bond.
Yes, water molecules line up to conduct electrons, and once entrained, will resist conducting elsewhere.

Many theories and technologies were required to make the internal combustion engine operate.
Mechanical, chemical, electrical, thermal.
One could argue that it's the thermal theories and technology that makes an engine work, and they would be correct.
But, leave the other theories and technology out, and you don't have an viable product.
Same here.  We just haven't figured out how everything fits together to make a viable product.

Meyers bifilar wound transformer created ions.  Meyers spoke of resonance.  People have incorrectly assumed Meyers might be referring to molecular or atomic resonance, but Meyers was speaking of the resonance of his circuitry with water being a part of his circuit, and the way Meyers used water in his circuit made it one half of the physical makeup of a capacitor. 

A capacitor has two plates or bodies, and it's the difference in charge between these two bodies and their individual capacities which makes them useful electrically. 

There are two ways to increase capacitance:
1) Bring the two bodies close together to create and electric field.
2) Increase the mass of the bodies.

The electrical stresses that can be applied to an inductor are limited not by the larger body, but by the smaller body involved in the makeup of the capacitor.  In Meyers circuitry, the total mass of his water cell is the lesser of the two bodies making up the capacitor that determines the resonant frequency of his circuit.

Most people have thought Meyers was referring to the capacitance that existed between the two electrodes that were immersed in the water, but that's wrong.  The resonance of Meyers circuit depended on the size of the inductor in conjunction with the mass of the watercell, and the watercell was the lesser of the two bodies that made up the capacitance used in Meyers circuit.  So, one end of Meyers inductor connected to the watercell, and the other end of Meyers inductor connected to the earth or the body of a car, and the watercell was the lesser of the two masses.  The less water one has in the watercell, the higher the resonant frequency of Meyers circuit, the more water one has in the watercell, the lower the resonant frequency of Meyers circuit.

And too, the larger the inductor, the higher the voltage, and the lower the frequency of Meyers circuit.  I am not of the opinion that a higher voltage is entirely needed since one only needs to create ions in the general vicinity of the electrodes, and once those ions have been created, one only needs to place a sufficient differential voltage across the two electrodes to create the electric field needed to break the water molecule.

-Roger
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on June 30, 2013, 04:28:27 AM
Everyone knows what Meyers circuitry looks like where the VIC is applied to the watercell.

This image is an attempt at making things a little clearer concerning the resonant portion of the Meyers circuit.

All conductive components of the watercell make up the total mass of the lesser half of the capacitor that the inductor is connected to.  The earth or car body make up the greater half of the capacitor.

The watercell only has so many available electrons that can be moved into or out of it's mass, thus this is the functional value of the capacitor made up of earth and the watercell, and thus the greater influence on the inductor and the resonant frequency of this circuit.

Meyers VIC is bifilar wound, but these windings are in paralllel, and while they function as a single inductor concerning resonance, they also serve as separate conductors to apply a differential voltage to two separate electrodes in order to create the electric field needed to break the ionized water molecules at the very point in time where those water molecules are entrained in conduction paths, conducting electrons from the rest of the water in the watercell.

Effect and timing creating a synergistic effect culminating in the efficient dissassembly of water molecules into their constituent components.

Meyer didn't appear to have an effective way of explaining the theory and methods behind his technology, or, he was attempting to keep his methods from being discovered, or maybe even he didn't understand his own technology.  He has certainly made things difficult for us to benefit from his discoveries.

-Roger

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on June 30, 2013, 06:28:44 PM
What if frequency does have some critical role to play in breaking down the water molecule?

By all accounts, it has nothing to do with molecular or atomic frequencies/resonance, and everything to do with circuit/electronic resonance.

Case in point, the clue Bob Boyce stumbled upon, where, in racing boats, he was using an electrolyzer, and a rectifier in his alternator shorted, and thereafter. when he reached certain engine RPM's, the output frequencies of the alternator power production, would cause massive amounts of hydroxy to be produced, and his boat would really take off!

What if?

My clues to opportunity have always been when someone says "It can't be done".
It's the edge of the map, where no one knows what exists....

Give the attached image some consideration.

Who knows, what might happen, if the full wave bridge rectifier was removed, and the resonant frequency line was crossed?

Are you at all curious??
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: TheCell on July 01, 2013, 08:03:09 AM
<By all accounts, it has nothing to do with molecular or atomic frequencies/resonance, and everything to do with circuit/electronic resonance.>
I think the information Puharich gave is more correct. Why should he lie about this frequency 22GHz.
He mentioned it because he found out while doing research.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: magpwr on July 01, 2013, 03:34:03 PM
Hi everyone,

I've manage to split tap water(cheap) using only 1watt of power 5v x 200mA  .This is still at fine tuning stage to observe bubbles production first using lower power before increasing power.


Please check my videos.Please download video and replicate.Just in case it's gone.
Recently i have discovered and fix a stability flaw with original Dave Lawton Phase Lock Loop circuit.I have posted in comment in my youtube channel.

http://www.youtube.com/user/sanjev21 (http://www.youtube.com/user/sanjev21)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: rogerthat on July 03, 2013, 10:20:09 AM
<By all accounts, it has nothing to do with molecular or atomic frequencies/resonance, and everything to do with circuit/electronic resonance.>
I think the information Puharich gave is more correct. Why should he lie about this frequency 22GHz.
He mentioned it because he found out while doing research.

Cell,

I apologize for not making that statement correctly.  <By all accounts, the technology/methods of Meyers/Boyce have nothing to do with molecular or atomic frequencies/resonance, and everything to do with circuit/electronic resonance.>

It's now obvious,  I incorrectly assumed that in a discussion named "Re: Stanley Meyer Explained", any statement made which didn't directly name another person/method/technology would be interpreted as directly applicable to Meyers methods/technology.

My mistake...Please forgive.

-Roger
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: magpwr on July 03, 2013, 04:14:11 PM
Hi everyone,

I have just uploaded a final video to show how to modify the "Dave Lawton's Phase Lock Loop circuit" in order to improve circuit stability and also to increase HHO production.(Please refer to my video on how to condition WFC first.4th week now)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhT9oF_2kek (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhT9oF_2kek)

This time i noticed the circuit is able to function as low as 4volts with Input current:100mA Power:0.4watt to split tap water.(Such a low voltage is not really necessary,but merely to observe bubble production on tap water)
Interesting thing to note the mosfet do not get really hot to the touch even at 2.5Amp using fix 12 volts supply.

 Next video provided if i am free.I will try to show how to connect up a HHO blow torch(around 2800C or 5000F)  to this WFC to power my small stirling engine generator.

"Please download video just in case and replicate"
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: sparks on July 05, 2013, 03:25:27 PM
    Ionizing radiation such as ultraviolet light in an electric field.   The electric field appears to be able to accelerate electrically charged particles like electrons.   If you initiate an electron cascade event in water vapor injected between two plates of a capacitor the accelerating electric field causes impact ionization.  It also decreases electron recombination.  As electrons bombard the anode it will cause space charge to build up around the anode unless they tunnel through the anode and slow down in what Tesla called a translatory device like a motor or resistor.  The products of the ionization of water vapor are monatomic oxygen and monatomic hydrogen.   The atoms after leaving the electrically stressed electron depleted zone will form various "excited" states of molecules.  Such as O3-O4-H-h2-oh-h3-.   In the presence of nitrogen you will get various recombination products like nitrates-nitrous oxidides-etc.   This recombination process is exothermic and will cause the fuel mixture to become heated and "burn" in the piston which increase the molecular kinetic energy.  In a confined vessel like a piston at tdc the increased molecular kinetic energy causes an increase in cylinder pressure as compared to crankcase pressure.   It is the conversion of electron motion within the atoms to macroscopic motion of a group of atoms we call a car.  Electron velocity within an atom 30 million miles per hour.  Free electron velocity in a car 60 miles an hour.  When you intensify voltage you are basically causing the force carried by electrically charged particles to work upon your area of interest.  Tesla built a voltage intensifier circuit that relies on producing standing waves within a resonant electrical configuration.  By impressing oscillations at the resonant frequency of a tank the tank saves the input force by increasing the amplitude of the standing wave.   The electrostatic potential between node and antidnode of the standing wave produces intense accelerating electric fields.   Tesla produced his tanks by careful attention to the capacitance and inductance of a coil.  By pulsing the coil at it's resonant frequency the coil offered infinite impedance to passage of electrical force through it.   So the force impressed, however meager accumulates, and the voltage between node and antinode (terminals of the coil) goes sky high.  This is like having the output of a huge step-up transformer terminating in open air.   There is no secondary current but it will sure as hell induce one in your body if you get between it and a free electron source.
   Voltage is a measure of force.  It is like using a lever.  You want to move a huge rock with just little old you.  You increase the force on your object at the sacrafice of time.  You will have to move the lever for a long time using the little gravitational force field you have.  You accumulate the force in the short end of the lever.



     sm in further refinements would use the hydrogen gas electric force field to not form water.    This is the equivalent of running a fuel cell without forming water.  Why would you take a whole bunch of protons and combine them with an element that creates a ground state molecule?  You take the protons-insulate them-allow the electric field to accelerate electrons towards them and divert the acclerated electrons into a copper collector to force electrons through an isolated working circuit.  Shed the velocity increase doing work instead of forming water.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on November 02, 2013, 04:42:09 AM
A video to help get this technology out to the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWhQusfWuac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWhQusfWuac)


Enjoy everyone  8)


h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: ramset on November 02, 2013, 06:21:04 PM
H20power
Thank you for sharing this tech ,really looking forward to studying this and understanding your data !
the claims seem quite amazing!
very nice Presentation .
 
Chet
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on July 08, 2014, 07:35:41 AM
http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/personalpics009_zpscf31888c.jpg
Well, getting the voltages up now  8) .


Hope to have it up and running soon.


h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 16, 2014, 05:41:10 PM
http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/IMG_4427_zps2e5d5c57.jpg
Shouldn't be long now I hope  ;)

Yahweh is good.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: TechStuf on September 16, 2014, 09:26:43 PM

Hydrogen production using cheap metals (Nickel/Nickel Oxide) at low voltage is now possible and very efficient.  Such that a single AAA battery can be made to produce it via simple method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_0cRYebYU

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-nickel-water-splitter-111213.html


TS
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 16, 2014, 10:20:24 PM
Hydrogen production using cheap metals (Nickel/Nickel Oxide) at low voltage is now possible and very efficient.  Such that a single AAA battery can be made to produce it via simple method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_0cRYebYU

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-nickel-water-splitter-111213.html


TS


I am well aware of that technology and as always they are 5-10 years down the road. This I am showing and telling you is happening right now.

I guess what most fail to realized about what Meyer did is it operates at a subatomic level. Now it would take me too long to lay all of that out for everyone so that means you all have to do your own homework on the things I say.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: teslaedison on September 16, 2014, 10:43:26 PM
you guys only need two electrodes in said water and preferably distilled water because you dont want all the chemicals to react to the magnetic moments in the water for starters !!   And another thing is that your trying to mess with single molecules at a time too here !!   I found out that you can flash the whole mass of distilled water with the magnetic moment as pulses but with all the frequencies like lightning bolts hint hint !!!   You have to get rid of all the bad negative Ion's of said water which are also Negative Electrons that are losing there magnetism because of heating up the tap water to get the distilled water that affects each negative electrons when all electrons are part of the magnet flux lines which are static in themselves !!! Here is a diagram to show you all here how blowned up you can see what I am talking about how the electrons are attracted to the oxygen now
Thomas
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: TechStuf on September 17, 2014, 02:56:55 AM
Quote
I am well aware of that technology and as always they are 5-10 years down the road.

Perhaps not as well aware as you assume.  Afterall, the methodology for depositing thin films of Nickel Oxide on cheap silicon wafers is not rocket science.  It's only 5-10 years down the road for those who prefer the hard way. The point is, it is simple and they're doing it N-O-W.

http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/146/4/1407.abstract

The technology is eminently scalable and much simpler and more efficient than any other I've seen.  And I've been down that road aways.  And its back alleys too.

Hydrogen catalysis don't get much simpler than that, and with the observed output at 1.5v with a triple A battery.....

Well, the results speak for themselves.


TS
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: teslaedison on September 17, 2014, 03:36:21 AM
with 1.5v of DC you can use a coil with it to up the voltages but you would need a DC capacitor with this also to harness the energy and then use it when you need it all to produce a flashing affect to the whole water !!!  Energy is not wasted
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 17, 2014, 09:38:31 PM
Perhaps not as well aware as you assume.  Afterall, the methodology for depositing thin films of Nickel Oxide on cheap silicon wafers is not rocket science.  It's only 5-10 years down the road for those who prefer the hard way. The point is, it is simple and they're doing it N-O-W.

http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/146/4/1407.abstract

The technology is eminently scalable and much simpler and more efficient than any other I've seen.  And I've been down that road aways.  And its back alleys too.

Hydrogen catalysis don't get much simpler than that, and with the observed output at 1.5v with a triple A battery.....

Well, the results speak for themselves.


TS


I know all about the artificial leaf and that is the technology they are talking about. Did you notice the date June 29th 1998 which is just a few months after the death of Stanley A. Meyer? I can guaranty that you or anyone that I have ever seen before have never gotten the results being shown to everyone of getting the voltages being applied to the water fuel capacitor up to 8.8kv and note I am a lot higher now. I talked about how this technology works at the Global BEM with an interview from last year done by John Fraser. Even with one transformer blown I was able to show voltages being applied to the water fuel capacitor that no one has ever seen before.

The bottom line however is this; Replacing the current energy sellers is going to be a monumental task so there is plenty of room for all that come up with working solutions to start the process running on their own merit or ideas just as long as they put it in a package that the consumers can buy and more importantly use. Just to give you an idea of just how large the task at hand is lets just look at one state in the Union California. In 2012 32 million cars where registered in the state of California and at a rate of one million cars converted per year it would take 32 years to complete the task at hand assuming no growth. My one little company would be hard pressed to get this done in 32 years and note we are only talking about just one state in the union and only talking about the cars registered on the road ways and haven't begun to talk about all the forklifts, farming equipment, and anything else that needs to be converted to running on this clean technology.
You people need to wake the hell up and do the math and stop with these petting arguments and vain jangling as this is not going to be an easy task to do in replacing the current system we have in place right now. Please get your heads out of the dream world and start actually doing something towards getting the task at hand completed.
So basically what I am telling all of you is if your not doing something to solve the problem then you are part of the problem as the time for sitting around doing nothing has long since passed.

h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: teslaedison on September 17, 2014, 10:18:22 PM
oh Did Stanley Meyers said anything about deionizing the negative out of water in his videos ?  If he did not then that is what he is also doing there and all negative Ion's are also all negative electrons that are losing there magnetic attraction to itself and the temperatures does play with one of major parts of water !!  And sir I dont have my head in my butt you would say here because the findings I came up with is the only explanation to my experimenting with distilled water in my video !!  Have or has anyone tried to use one paper clip and one stainless steel spoon to get what I got yet here ?   No because you guys think you got all the dang answer but dont !!!   Its ok if you or anyone here dont listen to me its fine by me because I got something you guys have not seen or used yet !!!   I wish that someone would work with me on my findings but its ok also because some of you guys are lost then and do not care to help me out at all when you got your own heads up your tuss yourselves !!!
Tom
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on March 15, 2015, 11:54:13 AM
oh Did Stanley Meyers said anything about deionizing the negative out of water in his videos ?  If he did not then that is what he is also doing there and all negative Ion's are also all negative electrons that are losing there magnetic attraction to itself and the temperatures does play with one of major parts of water !!  And sir I dont have my head in my butt you would say here because the findings I came up with is the only explanation to my experimenting with distilled water in my video !!  Have or has anyone tried to use one paper clip and one stainless steel spoon to get what I got yet here ?   No because you guys think you got all the dang answer but dont !!!   Its ok if you or anyone here dont listen to me its fine by me because I got something you guys have not seen or used yet !!!   I wish that someone would work with me on my findings but its ok also because some of you guys are lost then and do not care to help me out at all when you got your own heads up your tuss yourselves !!!
Tom

Sorry about the late reply but I don't always come to this site much now days.

You speak as if I should know the name "Tom" and of some video of yours but don't provide any links to. You ask for support but choose to fight is that your way of trying to gain my support? If so let me tell you it isn't working for you nor will it.

You come at me trying to tell me how you think this all works basically with an attitude of forcing your views on me but don't show any proof of your work. Like a lot of others will find out when I choose to speak about this technology you should choose to listen. Unlike you I am not playing around with paper clips as can be seen here as this is the whole prototype setup I am currently working with: http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/IMG_0700_zps8bd5a84c.jpg As you can clearly see I have put a lot of time, money, and effort into this technology and am not just playing around with paper clips.

This technology is not an easy nut to crack and as a result over preforming many experiments I can tell you that with each new thing found out more things pop up that need to be solved a lot of times. Up to this point I have had a voltage sticking point of 9.2kv being applied to the exciter array but I think I have this problem solved now. I am just hopping that another new problem doesn't pop up this time around that I will have to solve before reaching the threshold for ionization of the atoms that make up the water molecules.

This technology is on the complex side and as a result of that many have tried and failed to get the results Meyer talks about and shows in a few of his videos. When they fail to the point of giving up they then turn Nay Sayer out of arrogance. I have already shared the core science behind this technology back in 2013 and have yet to witness anyone making good use of what I shared with the world free of cost. I am really no longer in the sharing mood these days as all I have to show for it is a lot of people telling me I don't know what I am talking about despite my efforts showing everyone that you can put high voltages directly to a water bath in direct contact with uncoated SS metal electrodes. I have shown my work on the net of just what my many experiments show on how this technology actually works but only a small few choose to follow my lead. So few in fact I say what's the point? I show people things they have never seen concerning this technology that perfectly matches up with what Meyer says should be taking place in his many lectures that can be found on the net, IE, high voltage being applied to a water bath while restricting the flow of amps into the milliamp rang.

In time people will be looking over everything I have left up on the net, just call it a feeling I have for now.

Well, time to get back to work.
Take care and happy experimenting 8)
h2opower
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 15, 2016, 08:34:17 PM
It's been a while since I have posted on this forum but rest assured I have been hard at work getting this technology solved. As of right now all of the science and math is showing to be correct as it is following right along with experimental results. But my views on how things should go have totally changed as I have added to my thinking a complete understanding of just how the markets work and know to have everyone trying to build "One-offs" is heading in the wrong direction as this technology has to follow sound market principles which show if it is to come out to the masses that need it the most it has to do so by way of mass production. This new understanding has put me at odds with the way things are being done and planned for right now so I wrote an article about it here: http://aetherforce.com/truth-open-source-inventors-perspective/


In the attachment you will find some information that explains a lot about this technology and goes over many things most people missed as they tried to solve this technology. Right now I just need a little more time as I have to wait for some things to be made for me before I can proceed with the next round of experiments.
I hope you all enjoy the information in the attachment and found the article I wrote to shed some light on the problems I found with Open Source.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: pomodoro on September 16, 2016, 01:21:32 AM
Hi thanks for the post, I'm going to enjoy reading it thoroughly with a cuppa over the weekend. One thing I have noticed while glancing through the PDF is that you have the water molecule splitting directly into O and H.  This process has never been seen in any scientific study , including vapour  electrolysis in high voltage fields. Water seems to always dissociate into OH- and H+ in high electric fields, because the Oxygen is so damn electronegative. One H+ is easy to rip away from the neutral molrcule but the other seems to be attracted so much that it apparenly doest happen. I know Meyer had the same splitting going described on his videos.
What are your thoughts on this??
Cheers
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 16, 2016, 02:06:04 AM
A while ago I got this effect with Meyer's technology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW78gKn1ZZ0


You will notice that there are very few small bubbles and the only way for this to be possible that I can think of is for the gases to be coming of in their monatomic gas state. I am not the only one that has gotten this effect. One thing we all notice is that the gases seems to generate right in the middle of the electrodes and not on the electrodes themselves. So, to honest it's a guess that it is coming off this way but it seems to be a good guess.


I have a question for you, if you don't mind? Who have you seen getting voltages like these with this technology? The only reason I ask is thus far I am the only one that I know of that is doing so. In 2013 at the Global BEM I reached 4.2kv. Latter on that year I reached 5.2kv and as time past I made it to 6.3kv, 7.5kv, 8,8kv, and finally to 9.2kv. With the next setup I should be able to reach 14kv or more if the math checks out experimentally.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: pomodoro on September 16, 2016, 05:03:41 AM
 I've been focusing on nanosecond electrolysis at low voltages, so I can't make any comments about HV  as yet. I guess the only comment is that in the video that came up after your link there are 450mA passing at 150V.  That's about 70W if its DC . How much of that do you think  is going into producing the hydrogen?  i guess I'm asking how does that compare with a system that uses 3.5V with 20A?  I'm very impressed with amount of gas coming from DI water regardless of efficiency, as the amount of current causing such quantities of gas on your video should not flow unless there are traces of ions or lots of atmospheric CO2.  In conventional electrolysis, having not much electrolyte is a recipe for huge  IxR losses, so the setup should  heat up after an hour or so of work at 70W, unless something revolutionary is happening, which could well be.  I really have to have a good read of your setup before I ask too many more  stupid questions. What is the best link to your work?

Cheers.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dog-One on September 16, 2016, 06:22:08 AM
@Ed,

Like your video, but I will tell you this:

If you ever get a true impedance match within your VIC, you better have that cell located in an explosion-proof container.  With those voltages, it will almost for sure arc over and the gas in there will be like Nitro-Glycerin.  Basically, a MAJOR setback.

Right now the only thing that is saving your hind end is that your balance is still a little bit off, i.e. you have your voltage zone near one plate or the other instead of centered.  My recommendation is that you cut back on the power and make adjustments by either adjusting your negative choke or add an external plate capacitor.

You've done a lot of work and I'd hate to see you blow yourself up.  With just a few tweaks you'll discover you do not need nearly so much power going into the cell.  Let voltage do the work, but only after you are properly tuned.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 16, 2016, 07:01:10 AM
That was from Meyer's 8xa circuit and yes it pushed amps but had a lot of high voltage spikes to go along with it. The MMW was only 3.0 but that is pure distilled water with nothing added to it. The plate spacing is only around 0.032 inches which a lot of us believe forces the hydrogen to come off in it's monatomic state. When I started getting high voltage there would be almost no small bubbles at all and now that I have been able to keep the B- and B+ voltages to within 20 volts of each other even at 9.2kv there is absolutely no gas production like normal as the current was measured to be only 0.6 mA flowing through the cell. It took me awhile to figure out just what was actually going on with this technology but like I said thus far the math and science seems to follow right along with experimental results. From what I can tell for a cell the size of mines it's going to take around 10.5-11.5kv to get it to just reach the threshold for ionization. For the most part it's works just like an ozone generator breaking the bonds of oxygen molecules with the only difference being the medium is now an semi conductive liquid, water. [/size]


From my research I found several things in nature that separate the water molecules in the same manor by getting at the electrons. One of them does so in the exact same way, it's all written on the page showing the supporting evidence for the theory I came up with. This is how I know it's going to work for it already happens in nature it just took awhile to learn how to get the voltage potential up to Meyer's stated working voltages for this technology. Lots of trial and error let me tell you lots.


Water is just about the same as any molecular gas in that the atoms will ionize at almost the same energy level for it takes 1312 kJ/mole for hydrogen and 1313.9 kJ/mol for oxygen. Something about this makes it possible to break it apart just the same as any molecular gas in a high voltage situation. What is needed is another full study on ionization by the scientific community as I feel they missed something. As for a link to my work I stop sharing awhile ago but I do have some of it on this Face Book page: https://www.facebook.com/True-Green-Solutions-189789027762878/?fref=nf
I just ran into far too many people that only wanted to fight with me and would ignore any science I'd bring forth. So, I left them to their thoughts and from the looks of it they simply ran out of steam now.


And to Dog-one don't worry as at amperages this low it just doesn't have enough energy to make an arc of this distance. The amps never get over 0.6 mA as long as I keep it in resonance no matter the voltage. It seems all that matters is I keep the B- and B+ as close to the same voltage, but opposite polarity, as possible. Plus remember Meyer did this and ran his car down the highway.  Remember that 9.2kv gets divided by ten so it's only 920 volts per resonant cavity. Meyer states that to get this working correctly I have to get between 1000 and 2000 volts per resonant cavity.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dog-One on September 16, 2016, 08:09:23 AM
Then lower the capacitance of each cell and reduce the number of cells and you should be in the ballpark.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 16, 2016, 08:28:00 AM
Then lower the capacitance of each cell and reduce the number of cells and you should be in the ballpark.


I mean no disrespect but I got this, okay? It's been two years since I last posted here and in that time I got at the core science behind this technology and a lot more. The main thing that has changed in my view of things is I know it must be brought out by way of mass production now. I simply refuse to go along with people that want the world to build "One-offs" as that leaves too many in this world without this technology. Through True Green Solutions http://www.truegreensolutions.net/ I will attempt to do things the right way so that the technology can be affordable for the masses. It's going to take time as I have an uphill battle in trying to build the company from the ground up. Most in the Open Source community tend to be against my actions in trying to do this but I have too as these are the rules of the market and I already know there simply is no getting around them. That is something the Open Source community still has yet to learn.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dog-One on September 16, 2016, 05:26:52 PM
I guess you know what you are doing Ed.  Hope you're right. 

If it were me, I'd assemble about 20 fully operational prototypes and give them away for peer review.  Those reviews will be the cheapest marketing you are going to find.  With thumbs up from all reviewers, only then would I consider mass production.

There are two rules you must follow if you continue on your current path:

#1  If you do not take care of the customer, somebody else will.
#2  The customer is always right.

Translation --  Nobody cares what you think you have.  You have to prove yourself to them.  They will happily beat you to a pulp if your product does not live up to their expectations.  One whiner will end any and all funding you otherwise might have received.  That's the cruel reality of "the markets" you speak about.  Bring your A-game or stay home.



BTW, these guys (https://www.lulzbot.com/) have far more complex technology; they're OpenSource too.  Buy theirs or build it yourself, either way everyone wins.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 16, 2016, 08:56:40 PM
I guess you know what you are doing Ed.  Hope you're right. 

If it were me, I'd assemble about 20 fully operational prototypes and give them away for peer review.  Those reviews will be the cheapest marketing you are going to find.  With thumbs up from all reviewers, only then would I consider mass production.

There are two rules you must follow if you continue on your current path:

#1  If you do not take care of the customer, somebody else will.
#2  The customer is always right.

Translation --  Nobody cares what you think you have.  You have to prove yourself to them.  They will happily beat you to a pulp if your product does not live up to their expectations.  One whiner will end any and all funding you otherwise might have received.  That's the cruel reality of "the markets" you speak about.  Bring your A-game or stay home.



BTW, these guys (https://www.lulzbot.com/) have far more complex technology; they're OpenSource too.  Buy theirs or build it yourself, either way everyone wins.


Thanks for understanding. For the most part I will follow Elon Musk lead and build the company up and then start Open Sourcing things if I see no one is able to follow me. Right now it sure looks like no one is able to follow me as I generally stand alone in my pursuit of high voltage being applied to the exciter array with a modified AC waveform. Like I told the other gentleman, I don't know of any one else getting voltages this high to their cells other than myself. One thing I will not do is agree to have the general public start building "One-offs," as that is the most expensive way to go about building anything and would thus leave most of the worlds population to not have this technology.


You have to think about the target of the things that are Open Sourced as when Elon Musk did it just who was the target for making use of what he Open Sourced as it sure wasn't you or I? If we were the targets then we would be able to build us one and park our gasoline driven cars but we weren't the targets for we simply don't have enough money to build something like that as a "One-off." That targeted people would be those whom own companies that are already set up for mass production, you see they are the targets for Elon's Open Source. This technology is no different in that the cost to build things the correct way would be far too high for most people to be able to afford if they had to build it as a "One-off." The only way around this is to get a lot of other people to buy it at the same time from the same company that will be making it. But I have seen first hand on many occasions how when money gets involved no one is willing to work together as one in these Open Source communities for it requires all to trust one person with their money to do the right thing. I have tried several times to get these communities members to work as one so that all could have this technology at a good price and not once did it ever work. I had to go outside of the Open Source communities to accomplish this mission. This is how there are several Gas Processors and Exciter Arrays in the hands of a few people that did work together with me. We came together to act as one which gave us the power to drive the cost down for each of us as we each understood the rules of the markets.


Hopefully in the future the Open Source community will learn these market rules and act accordingly. I have a company and if it has the support of the people it will be successful at getting this technology out to those that need it most. In any case if people in these Open Source communities come together pool their monies and ask me to build in bulk for them they will get the best prices I can give them as I am willing to work with them.


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dog-One on September 16, 2016, 10:50:57 PM
Ed,

Have you considered teaming up with an already established company such as one of these:

http://www.hhokitsdirect.com/

http://www.greenfuelh2o.com/

I've bought from both of them in the past and they have good prices and quality products.  Adding your stuff to their line-up couldn't hurt.  Might be a good way to get your foot in the door without having to do all the dirty work yourself.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on September 17, 2016, 02:10:00 AM
Not really as my market is different than theirs and then there's the question of control of the product. You see right now those companies, and any others like them, are competitors to True Green Solutions but as I stated our market is different. This technology requires none of the toxic products (electrolyte) their products are introducing to our environment for this technology only adds water with no toxic salts, acids, or bases to the system. Not one of them has done an impact study on those devices they sell that are adding those pollutants to our environment yet. They tell people to drain their cell before they go to use one of their cleaners but drain it where? on the ground? Then once it is cleaned again they tell you to drain it out with tap water and then put the toxic chemicals back in the device. I am not sure what you call this but I call it being irresponsible as they are polluting the environment they state they are trying to clear up from the oil company's pollution. Two wrongs don't make a right as they both are polluting our world in different ways.


Now to put this in perspective for you. Lets say that for the state of California that 50% of all the cars on the road use their products. This would be around 19 million cars dumping those toxins into our water supply. You want to talk about a mess as we are only talking about one state doing this. So as far as I am concerned they have to be put out of business too for the increased demand for the creation of these toxic chemicals will also aid towards polluting our world.


In general I find that most people do think like this as all they care about is the savings they might get from the promise of needing to use less gasoline while others do actually care about trying to clean our air but fail to take into account the impact on our environment when we go about using these toxic chemicals in mass. Thus I fully expect these companies to side with the oil companies for it will be in their best interest to do so, but who knows they might just surprise me.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on December 18, 2016, 02:08:48 AM
Hello Everyone,


With the year winding down it would seem that next year now has the promise of bringing this technology to the market place. Mostly I have been playing the waiting game this year in trying to get some parts built for me and have had to wait for over six months now to get the bobbins for the newest VIC transformer to be made for me. I feel I have most of the science figured out but can only get the unit working for a small amount of time as the transformers tend to burn out on me. I am currently trying to solve this problem and have no idea how much time that is going to take. Basically I am finding out that understanding the science behind this technology and building it correctly are two different things but they can't do without one another for without the understanding of the science behind the technology I would have never figured how to get the voltages up to the exciter array.


Now I have built and tested many different versions of Meyer's VIC transformer that being the, figure 3-25, figure 6-1, and the 10-4 versions of Meyer VIC transformers. I like the figure 6-1 the best thus far as it is the least confusing of the bunch when it comes time to wire it all up and from a business perspective would have the least amount of labor cost attached to it when going into mass production. A lot of these pictures I have never shown anyone before but I do so now for those whom think I have only tested out one of Meyer's many different types of transformers found in his patents. For as you can see I have been very busy working on all of the many types of transformers found in the patents to include the donut transformer (not shown).


The goal in doing all of this is to figure out this technology by actually doing the work and testing it so that I would allow myself to see with my own eyes just what they do when tested and experimented with in the real world.


Now I went back and re-read this entire thread to see if I missed anything or have some things changed with new understanding and the answer it yes, somethings have changed, but the over all concept(s) have remained the same for the most part as it's all about ionizing the atoms that make up the water molecules. I started this thread as a challenged to get people building this technology and sadly not many if any stepped up to the plate to build and test their own designs. Also when I started this thread I was a believer in Open Source and that too has changed as I no longer believe in Open Source for it would have everyone building "One-Offs" which is the most expensive way to go about building anything and thus would leave many in this world without this technology. I looked over the many people whom have come and gone since this thread was started and the many that just felt I owed them something and/or just came here to pick a fight with me and will have to say I have changed a lot since then, hopefully for the better.


A lot of links no longer work due to the site it was on has shut down since the time this thread was started. In fact many people are no longer working on this technology as it turned out to be far harder than they ever imagined to get all the "Why's" answered. I still have quite a few "Why's" that need to be answered but I feel I have answered enough of them to get parts of the technology up and running once I get all the parts I need to make them work.


In time I will need everyone's help as this technology will be just starting off.
Take care all and I hope this next year to be the one this technology finally makes it to the market place.
Ed
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Dog-One on December 18, 2016, 03:15:16 AM
Well Ed, I'm a little confused.

1.  You don't believe in OpenSource, yet you post publicly here at overunity.com.
2.  You want to build something that can be mass produced and sold where?
3.  You need everyone's help to get this off the ground, yet you scorn one-offs.

I sense a lot of mixed signals in your postings and very little hard-core details such as:
  * How to impedance match the coils to the cell.
  * How to tune the system once assembled.
  * Where to get off-the-shelf parts.
  * How concepts like Coulomb's Law apply to splitting water molecules.
  * Electrical schematics and scope shots showing the exact needed waveforms.

I sometimes feel this is just your hobby Ed and you have no real desire to "save the world".
I also don't feel you have the motivation to re-create this technology and share it
in a form people can immediately get their hands on and begin to replicate.
And lastly, I doubt very much you have the guts to get yourself and your
family killed over this technology.  Maybe someday you'll get lucky, get
something to work and the MiBs will offer to buy you out and you can
live happily ever after.  I know in the case of Mr. Walker, he found what
he was looking for and can now go to his grave with a smile on his face.
Myself, I'd rather be JFK'd doing what I know needs to be done.  My life
means nothing; what I take with me means everything.  Do you have
what it takes Ed?  I'm not asking you this to piss you off.  I'm asking you
this so you might take a deep look into your soul and define your purpose.

I'd like nothing better than to see you setup a complete system with ICE
and generator attached and fire this all up for the very first time on live
streaming cameras, so the whole world could see you prove this technology
out.  I'd like those streams to be so rich in detail that only a complete
idiot could not figure out what you have built.  Do it Ed, do it.  Let the
genie out of the bottle so it can never again be put back in.  Get angry.
Develop a hatred for silence, obscurity and falsehoods.  Let it all go.
Make a difference.  Make your mark in this 21st century.  And just
remember what Will Munny said in the movie Unforgiven...

   We all got it comin' kid.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on December 18, 2016, 05:25:32 AM
Well Ed, I'm a little confused.

1.  You don't believe in OpenSource, yet you post publicly here at overunity.com.
2.  You want to build something that can be mass produced and sold where?
3.  You need everyone's help to get this off the ground, yet you scorn one-offs.

I sense a lot of mixed signals in your postings and very little hard-core details such as:
  * How to impedance match the coils to the cell.
  * How to tune the system once assembled.
  * Where to get off-the-shelf parts.
  * How concepts like Coulomb's Law apply to splitting water molecules.
  * Electrical schematics and scope shots showing the exact needed waveforms.

I sometimes feel this is just your hobby Ed and you have no real desire to "save the world".
I also don't feel you have the motivation to re-create this technology and share it
in a form people can immediately get their hands on and begin to replicate.
And lastly, I doubt very much you have the guts to get yourself and your
family killed over this technology.  Maybe someday you'll get lucky, get
something to work and the MiBs will offer to buy you out and you can
live happily ever after.  I know in the case of Mr. Walker, he found what
he was looking for and can now go to his grave with a smile on his face.
Myself, I'd rather be JFK'd doing what I know needs to be done.  My life
means nothing; what I take with me means everything.  Do you have
what it takes Ed?  I'm not asking you this to piss you off.  I'm asking you
this so you might take a deep look into your soul and define your purpose.

I'd like nothing better than to see you setup a complete system with ICE
and generator attached and fire this all up for the very first time on live
streaming cameras, so the whole world could see you prove this technology
out.  I'd like those streams to be so rich in detail that only a complete
idiot could not figure out what you have built.  Do it Ed, do it.  Let the
genie out of the bottle so it can never again be put back in.  Get angry.
Develop a hatred for silence, obscurity and falsehoods.  Let it all go.
Make a difference.  Make your mark in this 21st century.  And just
remember what Will Munny said in the movie Unforgiven...

   We all got it comin' kid.


You don't know me and more than likely never will so, forgive me for not wanting to prove anything to you. Honestly I simply don't view the world as most people do as I tend to look at the big picture once I am able to see it. I tested Open Source to make sure what I found out about it really was the truth about it: http://aetherforce.com/truth-open-source-inventors-perspective/
As you seem to be aware I am the last of the old guys still working on this technology now as the rest of them have moved on with their lives. Some are just tired of failing all the time, a few fill they went as far as they could go and shared it all, while others are having health problems. From my perspective only confusion has come from their work on this technology to the point of making sure no one will be able to solve this technology if they are listened too. As for me the only thing I tire of is people like you demanding me to do as you say and/or trying to force me to see your way of thinking or point of view. I no longer follow the path that is most traveled now. I don't buy into turning movie fiction into real world realities nor do I follow the old ways all that much anymore. I have a path laid before me that I am following where it leads only the creator knows but follow it I must.


I don't know of this, "Got what it takes" thing you speak of nor do I want to know as it sounds very restrictive. I'll stick with the world of reality as here I know the rules as anyone that knows much about the markets knows to build a "One-Off" cost big bucks as that is how the markets work and there simply is no getting around that in this world. In what I will be asking of everyone is simply, help this technology go into mass production so that the per unit cost is driven down so that the masses can afford to buy it.


This technology isn't like Dr. Faraday's electrolysis as it is a complex technology where things have to be built with precision. Meyer's talk of using off the shelf items simply isn't true as I have built more of his technology than most and trust me it cost a lot of money and you can't go to your local Home Depot and buy the things you need to get this technology up and running correctly. After what Don Gable showed us about Meyer's technology anyone still believing that lie is a fool. I am not going to play your game as I choose to opt out and have been out for a long time now. I post what I post to help people understand the science behind this technology, complete with just how the waveform is supposed to look like and why it is supposed to look that way. Even the theory has scientific evidence backing it up. But like most that love to argue with me they want it all handed to them on a silver platter and to that I say no. I don't have all the answers to this technology yet as I still have a lot more to learn for I have a lot of "Why's" that need answering still. Like it or not basically I am all you have got right now as Ronnie, Max, Russ, and a whole lot of others are gone now. Those that remain aren't really working on Meyer's technology are they? Most are stuck in a loop in how they are approaching this technology as they come, then go away, only to return sometime later and do it all over again for a new crowd of people.


A little news flash, anyone that tells you that the waveform that I have been showing people is incorrect will never be able to solve this technology as that waveform is fundamental to how this technology actually works. In the pdf file I posted that should be very clear now, but I take it you have never taken the time to read it, correct? There is nothing I can do about that as I can give people knowledge but I can't force them to read and/or understand it. With all of the disinformation out there it truly makes it hard for people to know just whom to trust now days doesn't it? High voltage low amps isn't that what Meyer always said? Well, I have that and thus far stand alone in doing so as far as I can tell. Ronnie fears that I am going to blow something up but fails to understand that only 0.6 mA really isn't enough to arc the distance between the plates of the exciter array, plus he also fails to understand that the voltage is being divided by all the resonant cavities in the exciter array as they are hooked up in series. So, I will not be having any, "Catastrophic Dielectric Failure,"and blow everything up, okay? As for your being a bit confused I have no desire to give you any clarity as I have posted a lot of what I know for right now and that's that, and given our past dealings with one another, take it or leave it.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on July 24, 2017, 07:52:04 PM
I went over this thread and noticed that I didn't share the video interview that John Fraser took of Gunther and I while we were at the 2013 Global Breakthrough Energy Movement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ6G4yIyLdY&t=61s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ6G4yIyLdY&t=61s)


I have also re-looked at the video and noticed things have changed a lot in my understanding about this technology as hooking up these transformers in parallel doesn't work out to well. But the core science hasn't changed as it is the real science behind this technology as basically this technology makes it possible to hold the power of a thunderstorm in the palm of your hands. The voltages shown being applied to the excitor array has never been duplicated by anyone that I know of to this day. That cell shown in the video would need to reach 12kv or more to reach the threshold for ionization of the atoms that make up the water molecules since it has twelve resonant cavities wired in series and not 7.5kv as I thought back then. My new excitor arrays have only ten resonant cavities wired in series thus to reach the threshold for ionization would require 10kv of potential difference or more based on the information Meyer gave us in the patents where each resonant cavity will require 1kv of potential difference or more to get it working.


Now I am no longer doing any teaching of this technology as now all of my efforts and energies are being put into trying to actually bring this technology into the marketplace. So, these videos are basically the last teaching videos I will make for this technology. I also wrote a few follow up articles to this video on the Aether Force site. After dealing with Russ Gries and the moderators on RWG site and recently on the ionizationx site I have given up on trying to teach others this technology for there are just too many fakes out there pushing lies as the truth. You can't have a lie living right along side of the truth for one technology and sadly most people seem to prefer being lied to. It really shocked me that after I proved one member of the Ionizationx forum known as "Fabio/Sebosfato" to be outright lying to the entire group that his word was still being taken over mines. It was then I made up my mind that trying to teach this technology was basically a waste of time for there will always be some slick talker to come along and completely fool the masses.


So now all I am working towards is to actually bring this technology into the marketplace. I hope when the time comes that everyone on this forum will give their support for this technology, but sadly I can already see that some people will not be giving this technology their support as I asked them and got zero answers back to my questions concerning whether or not will they give their support when I move forwards with this technology. So, the "EGO" wars are still in full effect even though I have proven that I can do what no one else has been able to do with this technology as it's going on five years since that video was made and no one has duplicated those results shown in that video to this day. And note, I have move well beyond those results since then applying more than double the voltages to the excitor array than what was shown in the video interview now.
All I hope for now is the support of the people when this technology comes out as without support no technology can survive.


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on October 10, 2017, 03:50:38 AM
Well, RWG team gave me the full boot out of their site after I started talking about how we all must obey the rules of the markets. They didn't like it right from the start when I posted something about those whom are trying to get Russ to do things behind closed doors whom are actually the ones paying the bills as I stated that perhaps those people understand the rules of the marketplace.
Often times I wonder just where does this ignorance of how the markets actually work comes from in times like these as now to be ignorant of how these things work is a clear choice with the internet and all. All one needs to do now to understand the basics about how the markets work is run a google search and read up on it. So, this is a deliberate choice to be ignorant and I wonder what could be the motives driving their actions over there at the RWG site?

Talked to Russ and he states he had nothing to do with it and I believe him but I also know that it said I was KICKED OUT when I logged back in.


I wrote about this awhile ago when I ran into these problems in the past with a few more sites here: http://aetherforce.com/the-self-appointed-gatekeepers-soft-suppression/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=78183&relatedposts_position=1 (http://aetherforce.com/the-self-appointed-gatekeepers-soft-suppression/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=78183&relatedposts_position=1)

These people have no idea just what "Open Source" really is as open source only works for things that do not require any materials in which things must be built as the very second materials have to be brought then the rules of the markets kick in and the name of that game is buying in bulk. Anyone telling you otherwise is just lying to your face. Software is an example of something that can be Open Sourced as it's just a computer program or operating system. Making something as simply as a piece of paper requires materials, and machines which all cost money and are subject to supply and demand.  So to build a "One Off" is the most costly way to go about building something and this is how these people want technologies like Meyer's water for fuel tech to be put out to this world. This act would make this technology unattainable for billions of people as not only would one have to build just one of these devices but they would also have to understand how to put it to use in a safe manor that wouldn't get them killed or kill anyone else.


Why is it people have such a hard time understanding these simply concepts? I think the term "Free Energy" has been taken out of context in far too many online forums as the people in these forums think that the devices will cost them nothing to build and even less to implement into their lives. It's sad when you think about it as basically what has happened is greed has been used as a weapon against technologies like these where the very people that need it most are too greedy to want to pay for it or support someone trying to bring these technologies to the marketplace in a way that follows mass production so that it is cheap for everyone to have. I have a feeling that some well paid think tank put out these terms knowing full well that they would actually work to stop these technologies from coming out. Most forums that I have been on have fallen for these tricks hook, line, and sinker as all that is required for these tricks to work is for someone have a touch of greed about their personality. It's sad when you think about it as in these forums is supposed to be the world's brightest and they fell for these tricks put out by the powers that be to maintain their empires.


Well, I guess it is what it is, huh? 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: Rwg on October 10, 2017, 05:00:52 AM

It seems you are right back in the chat...  Hummm.. 

It's to bad you can't forgive and forget.

I spend the time calling you on Skype and apologizing for anything that you saw wrong.

And you still wright this stuff about me.

Well wright away.

 However to the reader. Make up your own choice. Look at what I have done and you'll see I'm just a human trying to do somthing for the world

I make mestskes. However I aploigise when I do and say sorry.

It's up to that other person to forgive.

One must move. I feel sorry for you ED. You seem like your trying to do somthing good

But every time I look around I see you bashing on others. And because I know the story I call tell the truth about the past if anyone asks.

However I rather move on. As I already have.

Best of luck and please. If your not open soruce. Stop posting in places that are.

Just get that thing done and sell it. If thats your goal. Because this is a waist of time worring about everyone else.

And especially those who already forgave any thing from the past.

I will post no more.

It's now up to the reader to make there choice.

~Russ Gries
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on October 10, 2017, 08:26:20 PM
Russ apologizing to me isn't what was needed but the truth about how I was called a cheat trying to rip off the members of the RWG when I was doing no such thing. Like I said to you the hole you have allowed to be dug around these outright lies abut me is now too deep to fix for you now as it would more than likely result in the loss of the few remaining followers that you still have. You say I bashed people but in all truth I only told those people a truth they simply didn't want to hear and in each case I have now been proven to be right on the issues as I followed where the science lead me. But I guess you and yours aren't use to someone whom knows how to fight back for as soon as I proceed to do so you yell at the top of your lungs that I am bashing those whom attacked me. What you don't understand that everyone on this site has seen just how sick these people are whom come to attack me on the issues of Meyer's technology. They got to see it with their own eyes as this individual that followed me from your site exposed himself on this site.


But sadly you still think I bashed all those people whom rose up against me when I was just following the science and telling everyone what I had learned from the many experiments I have run on this technology. I performed these experiments showed what was going on and almost instantly envy set in among the members of the RWG site to include yourself. On your site you have the power to shut me down but here on this site you have no such power and I am finally free to tell the truth of the matter. Ever since my partner and I went to the 2013 Global BEM and showed for the very first time ever that a high voltage could be placed directly to a water bath in an exciter array. Then I put 4.2kv to the exciter array that had 12 resonant cavities wired in series which gives 350 volts per resonant cavity. I thought this amount of progress would be welcomed on your site but just the opposite happened. People came out of the woodwork to bash my partner and I and went out of their way to put down any science I shared with the world on the interview video done by John Fraser. It was around that time the you approached my partner trying to get him to leave me and join you and your team. Don't attempt to deny this as my partner will just come on this site and tell the truth of your backdoor dealings.


Sadly since all of you at the RWG rejected the science I was putting out about this technology none of you have made any real progress since 2013 while I went from 4.2kv to 9.4kv being applied to the excitor array giving a wonderful 940 volts per resonant cavity but sadly still short of Meyer's stated working conditions of 1kv or more per resonant cavity. You should have known better to come and try and save face in a place you simply could not control as you have done so many times in the past with me. On your site there is no real progress being made on Meyer's technology for none of you know much of anything about how to actually go about solving unknowns making use of the scientific method. I see nothing but endless circles on this technology at the RWG site. But it's the envy the members of your site had towards my many progresses in getting the voltage up that pushed you to mute me on your site as they demanded it and being ever so envious yourself you obliged. So, you succeeded in muting my voice and shutting out the real science about Meyer's technology on your site is what you actually accomplished because there you have the power to do so but not here.


The one thing you and many others like you whom have rose up against me in the past fear is that I just might succeed with this technology and I am telling you now that all of your fears have come true. I know it's a true slap in the face for you and all the others whom chose to mute my voice out due to your envious feelings of my work and the successes I have been having at getting the voltage up over time with my work. For if I succeed then you all know that I was right and you should have listened to me instead of shut me down at every turn in the places you all had under your control. I know that all the sites the banned me will be feeling really bad in the very near future for how they told the one trying to steer them in the right direction to go put it where the sun doesn't shine. I go out of my way to tell you and many others the truth about just what Open Source truly is and again my voice is stomped into muteness in the places where you all control the narrative but you have no power here to mute my voice as you have done so so many times in the past when you didn't like the truths I was putting out. Open Source isn't for technologies that require materials to build something for the way Open Source would have the worlds population do things is to each his own making One-Offs which as I have stated many times in the past is the most costly way to go about building anything. When materials are required to build something then the rules of the markets kick in and none of us can get around those rules as that's a crap sandwich we all are forced to eat. You see I know your fears and my solving this technology is way up high on that list of yours, but you are not alone as all sites that have banned me in the past share those same fears. As it goes to show that when the truth came knocking at your doors you did all you could to turn the truth away and prevent it from entering into your dwellings. In all truth I feel sorry for all of you as I was totally willing to allow each and everyone of you to learn this technology with me provided you do your own work as I was doing my partner called it load sharing. I wanted things to be like in a real scientific world where we all worked towards a goal and went over the science we had collected from our many experiments. But sadly no one was willing to do any work and preferred that I do all the work and simply hand over what I had learned about this technology to them free of charge. We all know how that action went down as I simply started keeping my mouth shut as not many were willing to work with me from the ground up.


It's not enough for you to apologize as you have to take corrective action in clearing my good name over and over again until the damage that you did is made whole again. How to you expect me to look past those evil things you did when you come here and try and tell everyone that I bashed people when all I really did was tell them truths they simply didn't want to hear? I remember some of those arguments when I told people that the working voltages for this technology was 1000 volts or more. People jumped all over me for saying that and when I posted the source from Meyer's own words what did I get from everyone? Silence is what I got. In fact each time I'd talk about something I'd be attacked in the same way over and over again even when I proved that the water is being separated by ionization from Meyer's own words. In fact I challenge you to show someplace where I didn't tell the truth. Think you can do that? Now there are places where I made mistakes but most of the time I was the one to catch and correct those mistakes and tell everyone that I in fact got something wrong. However I do recall someone correcting me when I was trying to figure out what "Bidirectional Wrap" meant. I had found something that showed it being wrapped in two directions at a 45° angle. He showed me that I simply had to break down the word thus Bi = two and Directional = in which direction it was to be wrapped which clearly showed me that the 45° part I had gotten incorrect as it is to be wrapped all in one direction and then back again on top of the one that was previously wrapped without breaking the wire, thus wrapping the primary in two directions. Meyer used that word to throw everyone off as it wasn't a word that could be simply looked up in a dictionary.


I think the problem is you are not use to dealing with someone whom likes to tell the truth that also has a very good memory. So to come here and openly say I have bashed people I say, "Prove it!"


Ed
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on October 11, 2017, 07:12:37 PM
This post is to give credit where credit is due. The person that helped me to understand what the word, "Bidirectional Wrap," meant was Jerry Volland. Most of the time he and I didn't see eye to eye on much of anything as I'd be doing actual experiments and he would be dreaming up ideas expecting me to accept those unproven ideas as fact over the my experimental observations. But none the less I am thankful for his help as that one word took me for a loop.
In my studies searching for the meaning of this word this is what I found that had the word "Bi-directional Wrap" actually used. It should be clear how I got the 45° angle mixed up in the meaning of the word.


Now getting back to Russ for a bit more clarity. I think he, Russ, would come into the middle of a fight that someone started with me and see that they were losing the fight, in which they started, badly then assume that I was bashing on them. In fact most of the time I spent at the RWG site I'd be defending myself from one fight after another people had started with me with almost no let up. I'd talk about my experimental results and some not so smart Chap would come in to tell me that I didn't see what I thought I saw. Some of these people even made entire videos and alternate threads just to bash me and/or try and disprove what I was sharing with everyone. A lot of the times when they did so it would be reviled that they didn't have the proper test equipment to read this technology, thus would be flying in the blind, or that they weren't even running any experiments at all for what they had to say was pure speculation based on some ideas they would have in their heads. Russ seemingly would not take the time to see what was actually going on and assume that I was bashing people when the truth was I was merely defending myself from fights they started with me. I hope this clears things up a bit.
Oh, and to add to insult they did ban me as just look at the next attachment. Now you know a bit more about how Russ and/or his minions actually operates for if they can't control the situation or what is known at the narrative then he or his minions (haxar) ban you.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: tinman on October 18, 2017, 03:53:06 PM
Well Ed,i must say that i was a little upset with Russ my self not so long ago.

I hadnt heard from him in a long time,only to see he posted a video directed at my work i was doing at the time,pointing out mistakes he thought i had made.

If he had of been following the thread at OUR,where i was asked to take voltage and current measurements separately,then maybe he would have understood what i was showing.
Needless to say,he did the measurements incorrectly him self in his video,where he showed the phase shift between two current value's,instead of the phase relationship between voltage and current that relates to power factor.

But none the less,I still believe in Russ,and what he is doing for the community.
I also still have the up most respect for him,and would have a cuppa or beer with him any day.

We (Russ and myself) gave birth to the pulse motor build off's,which was a huge success for the years it was in play. The buldoff's just seemed to bring so many people together,and was a wack of fun.

Russ and myself use to be as thick as thieves,and it saddens me some what that we no longer seem to get together,and have a yarn.

Anyway Ed--forgive and forget--thats what i say.

Brad
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
Post by: h20power on October 18, 2017, 11:30:20 PM
Well Ed,i must say that i was a little upset with Russ my self not so long ago.

I hadnt heard from him in a long time,only to see he posted a video directed at my work i was doing at the time,pointing out mistakes he thought i had made.

If he had of been following the thread at OUR,where i was asked to take voltage and current measurements separately,then maybe he would have understood what i was showing.
Needless to say,he did the measurements incorrectly him self in his video,where he showed the phase shift between two current value's,instead of the phase relationship between voltage and current that relates to power factor.

But none the less,I still believe in Russ,and what he is doing for the community.
I also still have the up most respect for him,and would have a cuppa or beer with him any day.

We (Russ and myself) gave birth to the pulse motor build off's,which was a huge success for the years it was in play. The buldoff's just seemed to bring so many people together,and was a wack of fun.

Russ and myself use to be as thick as thieves,and it saddens me some what that we no longer seem to get together,and have a yarn.

Anyway Ed--forgive and forget--thats what i say.

Brad


It's tough with Russ and I as the history we have together is long and even though he will send me emails saying that he loves me his actions speak something entirely different to the point where it makes him out to be a hypocrite. It all went south when I tried to make an excitor array for everyone so that we could all be working on the same cell which would cut out some variables on our way towards solving Meyer's technology. This way we all would have the same cell and could share our work more effectively as we would be working from the same cell exactly. Russ and others saw it as if I was trying to steal money from Russ's crowdfunding thing he had going on at the time and I was accused by quite a few people as to be trying to rip off the members on the RWG form. Now the cell would have cost everyone $1000 USD each and this was at a time when Max was selling a cell for $2500 USD. Then someone else thought they would undercut the price I was selling them at to prove I was trying to rip everyone off failed because he found out it would cost him $1400 USD without shipping, wiring the thing up, and no float switch or hose connections of any kind which the ones I was offering everyone did come with. After he failed to prove I was trying to rip people off Russ, whom says he loves me, wouldn't come to my aid to clear my good name. All I was trying to do was to get us all working on the same cell so that we could compare numbers more effectively.
The reason no one could beat the prices I was offering them at to the RWG members was I was selling them at a loss which I made perfectly clear to Russ to try and get him to go to the site and clear my good name. For every ten units made I'd lose $100 USD out of my own pocket but to me it was worth it as we needed some sort of standardization so that we all could work together far more effectively. I tried several times to get Russ to go to the site and clear my good name but he simply wouldn't do so and still hasn't done so to this very day. It took me awhile to figure out why it was he would do so as that would mess up his funding that was pouring in from his site or that's what I summed it all down to. So, he was totally willing to allow me to be tossed under the bus.
He tried to apologize to me personally but I made it clear to him that it had to be done in a public way to clear my good name for my good name was smeared in a public place with these outright lies. Even now he comes to this site and accuses me of bashing people when all I was doing was defending myself when people picked fights with me. Those that chose to pick fights with me generally lost very badly as I was actually doing the work with all the proper equipment while most if not all of the work they were doing only took place between their ears. It seem to upset Russ to see me wining each and ever fight someone would chose to have with me no matter whom it was that chose to get into a fight with me. But he had none of those feelings for me the one actually getting picked on by so many people at once. Some of those people that picked fights with me were the monitors of the form and when they too started to lose badly they suspend me.  But I decided to leave their forum in a public way and they tried to keep all of my work after I had asked them nicely to take it all down. I threatened to sue them if all of my post and work wasn't taken down from their site and with great reluctance they finally took it all down.


Then after they saw me perform the impossible at the 2013 Global Breakthrough Energy Movement they allowed me back on the forum with the hopes that I would show them how I did it but in secret it was really done out of spike as you see the first time I willing chose to leave the forum and made it clear that I was the one doing so due to the double standard they had placed on those of us with businesses. This time they moved to ban me out of pure spike just so they could say that they banned me. But then I wrote a paper about it and they got wind of it and allowed me to not be banned but also not be able to make a single post on their site, but somehow I could still post in the chat room which was something they didn't anticipate. They got to talking about some people trying to get Russ to do things behind closed doors and I mentioned that perhaps those people understood how the markets actually worked. That got haxar really hot and he started kicking me out of the chat room and would take great joy in actually typing in the words, "Kicked Out," as if you shut down the page it would say that you had, "Logged Out." Now he was hiding behind his powers at the RWG and when I called him on being the one that had did the deed he then moved to give me the full ban which I posted above that I took a picture of before he could ban my computers IP address. There are some very evil people working for and/or on Russ's behalf, and haxar is one of those evil people. So for me they really haven't stopped their attacks on me as several of them came to this site to post negative things about me that had no truth in them or they would just start telling me that I had it coming, or I had to pay for something I had done in the past to them.


The irony of all of this will take place once they see and/or learn through the grapevine that I have a working prototype up and running. For it will be at the very moment that they will know that they had a chance to have this technology also if they had simply played by the rules and followed the scientific method as I had always ask them to follow. Yep, at that moment they will be going over anything they can find on the net about my work and trying to create new names from which to hide under trying to get/trick me into telling them how it all works. I think I already let it be known on this site that I simply do not teach this technology anymore as I have had my fill of these types of people.


Now I will choose to forgive Russ and his minions for what they have done but I will never forget as to do so would allow it to happen all over again.


Ed
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions (TGS)