Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Relative Permittivity of Water  (Read 234650 times)

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #180 on: October 17, 2011, 10:32:22 AM »
tau= T= time constants of L/R or CR.
charging + discharging curves of V and I


http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_16/4.html

This is why I have linked electronics sites , all the info is available and its FREE*** to anyone , theres NOTHING stopping people learning.
IF the info WAS STOPPED then every one would be smuggling it out, but if its free its snubbed(? ?)

There seems to be calcs for everything now , chips and all ! I myself should be using them instead of an old casio fx.

eg: http://www.schematica.com/555_Timer_design/555_Timer_Free.htm

I get the impression FE types think it will take away their free thought or the theory will turn them to skeptics.   WHY limit their own potential?

A person has to know whats inside the box to be able to think out side it!

Ralph Stranger of BBC radio wrote good books in the 1930s, referred to aether, well worth reading, he was no tin foil hatter.
No doubt the books are on the net somewhere.





wfchobby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #181 on: October 18, 2011, 08:06:30 AM »
so you mention a RC constant and some error somewhere, could you be a bit more specific?

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #182 on: October 18, 2011, 09:33:52 AM »
OH NO! ! ! 

........you ,had to button *that* button.....

Time costant = L/R   or    CR

ERROR = ( R + Xl + Xc + 78.54 )  times C.

This is completely wrong........*NOT my Fault*  , 78.54 is unaccounted for. ? ? R is not added to X
 
post #241 , may 19 2011
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7030.240

You will have to ask the architect yourself ....post #13
http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=227

Good luck! !




wfchobby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #183 on: October 19, 2011, 03:55:20 AM »
okay so theres some formula / calculation error....

Im not versed withthe math nor physics of said processes, would you kindly point us in the right direction of say doing a calculation that also takes into account of the changing values of the ...water...due to temperature and so on...?

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #184 on: October 19, 2011, 10:31:47 AM »
Some ?  its unworkable , AC formulas dont belong in there.

Water intrinsic properties = permittivity and  resistivity, and high polarizability as demonstrated by kadora @ Lv DC , sandia @ MV DC ,excimer laser, Joss research @ KV DC and Mic oven Hf HV AC and 50 hz AC.

http://www.sandia.gov

Sandias National Lab article -"Multi-mega volt switching in water ", points out as the water itself switches from a dielectric to a conductor that trips the main water cap bank.
***SWITCHING MEDIA**,  and thats top shelf pure water supply in the channels.

How does water fit into reso freq
  f = 1 / 2 pi (sq root L C )
or/and   Xc = 1/ 2 pi f C
or/and   C = er e0 A / d  (KA/d)
or/and   V/I = ohms    (resistivity,R,X,Z)

If anyone wants to follow that path and track a moving Reso f ,thats none of my bussiness ....by choice.
Water conductance is always ignored when the subject is Resonance.
 

wfchobby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #185 on: October 19, 2011, 11:11:46 AM »
thankyou.
a link to the Sandia article from google is:
www.sandia.gov/pulsedpower/prog_cap/pub_papers/022611c.pdf

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #186 on: October 23, 2011, 02:56:11 AM »
This was sent to me .Thnx.   (O.U.R)    (....R?)

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=125.0

1; it takes brute force from a prime mover to turn an Alternator , Generator or Faraday gen.

2;Ingress protection rating applies to water around electrical equiptment because water and AC do not go well .  High polarizability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingress_Protection

3;If a stator coil (3) is brought to a closed conducting path, one of its effects is to behave as a shade ring , effecting the core.   If its a dead short in normal running ,its a melt down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaded-pole_motor

4;Water caps do not generate hydrogen gas, its not a function. Thats a function of a cell.

5;Faraday gen = DC , the brute force electrolysis stuff.

Stan meyers captured peoples imagination.

Capture; to take by force ,surprise or skill**





Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #187 on: February 05, 2012, 12:27:56 AM »
No!  i have never built an 8XA and never will.
learn electronics/electrical theory and then youll be able to trace a circuit to see if
its a red herring.
DREAMING = gate f higher than anode f , variac.

Just for laughs wouldnt it be easier to use a store bought 3 ph switchmode pwm chip??? 
eg; UC3620, UC3622,...
but only if you beleive thats the key

water is a non linear R = NON OHMIC
non linear components eg; transistor, diode , valve etc
electrochemical = NON OHMIC , no current flow until the redox potential is reached.

If anyone changes any part of the 8XA , logically that should indicate 8XA is BOGUS , eg;
"modified" "updated"  "new improved" "revised" ...
people with electronics exp **should** know better , the main f is from variac , itll
produce set amount of gas anyway .

H2 sites never show circuit component spec explainations of Horvath,Puharich or Meyers
,it would fall over straight away.
Stan Meyer and puharich did a lot of damage to stifle "replicators" ,its worked every year for 31 yrs!!

Question; How did Stan protect himself from YOU ???  OR..
How would YOU stop people from copying YOU???
**give yourself an Honest answer.
Your the consumer , thats the natural order.

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #188 on: March 24, 2012, 04:08:25 AM »
J
1.that things a door stop!  that admission wont come any time soon
 
2.I wont follow those links , Im just not interested in what those guys are doing
 
3.The formula youve got is for a closed circuit = finito (Finite)   radio, TV etc the environment is part of the circuit = open
 
4.Look at 12 v batt , all components including the casing originate from the ground.  earth is sink or source.   look at ground to air lightning or volcanic eruptions.
Hydro dam = mass of electron and proton in form of H2O are used to force a turbine under gravity to move electron in Cu.
again all components of the dam and grid are from the ground  .  solar panels,coal,oil ,uranium , all from the same place.
on the fundamental level...we have nothing , we have to manipulate the environment to get energy.
 
5.  =NO!
6. = DONT KNOW  = go ask    (not MYN)
 
 

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #189 on: April 06, 2012, 12:11:06 AM »
 
youll find him here .....I shouldnt have to say it but.....*something* tells me I DO....
 
**HE WONT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS** .     
 
no one associated with meyers is going to say anything ,it takes time for people to wake up (hind sight)and no one of any standing can support the literature , its laughable and full of solid crap.
 
**try and find an electrician ,electronics tech or uni student to back up any of it.
ANY OF IT!!
 
http://www.boltontrust.com/about-the-bolton-trust
 
 

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #190 on: April 07, 2012, 10:58:59 AM »
it makes more sense to ask direct instead..of ME!
 
http://hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=227&page=2
 
http://www.truegreensolutions.net
 
theres mistakes ...
 

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #191 on: April 07, 2012, 11:05:16 AM »
 
 
(http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/8XA9XBand9XDCorrectedbifilarcoilconnectionplusMOT.png)
 

Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #192 on: April 07, 2012, 11:14:36 AM »
good 1 not even the picture works!
 
the transformer in the pic at heretical is not a variac
http://hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=227&page=2
 
the 600 v 50A bridge rectifier is around the wrong way
the anodes are connected to the anode of the SCR , therefore reverse bias = OFF
 
the 100v 5A bridge rectifier is around the wrong way
the anodes are connected to 7805 + 7812 regulators inputs = wrong
 
its easy enough to find answers .
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_6/chpt_5/5.html
 
when componenents are placed backwards in a diagram its a clear indication of the lack of knowledge .
 
heres symbol of variac
 
 

canufi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/canufi
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #193 on: June 02, 2012, 10:21:22 PM »
Nothing stan wrote is useable , FIG 1-1 AA circuit is BOGUS , 8XA circuit is BOGUS.

Then why have people successfully replicated the 8XA circuit such as youtube users TonyWoodside and Irondmax?

The 8xa and 9xb circuits have been shown on youtube to produce lots of hydrogen using Distilled water and tap water.

Stan may have not fully understood what was going on, but he experimented rather that used pure theory. Physicists that use pure theory without any experimentation are not scientists - they are mathematicians. That's why string theory is not science because it has no evidence to support its claims. Only when string theory is supported by experimental evidence, will it become science.

The question is whether Stan's devices produce excess energy. The devices he created may in fact just be a more efficient way of producing hydrogen, not over unity. 

The simple test to do, is to compare his steam resonator to a Walmart kettle. A kettle is 99 percent efficient since the heater in a kettle transfers all heat to the water, so the steam resonator MUST be better than a kettle if it is of any use. Developing a steam resonator that is no more efficient than  a walmart kettle is either delusion because you think Jesus is with you and helping you, or it's intentional fraud. 

I don't see why someone would waste their time inventing a steam resonator if kettle's at walmart for cheap are already 99 percent efficient....  Someone can EASILY test the steam resonator to see how fast it boils water, using a thermometer, stop watch, and 1 litre of water. Simple test to prove Stan was on to something novel.

canufi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/canufi
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #194 on: June 02, 2012, 10:58:09 PM »
I have always wondered why so many appear to attempt replication using a main supply for power when I would have thought the goal was to use in a vehicle - thats why I wont replicate the 8xa because I dont see the point of spending a lot of $$$ on a board thats effectively tied to a mains supply.

The point of using household power supply is to get a 120V generator running on hydrogen instead of gasoline, and also to get home heating systems working based on the steam resonator. This technology is not just for cars, it is for households too.

Anyone who tries to get a car running on hydrogen is wasting their time. Small 1HP or 2HP generators are much easier to get running. A car is very heavy and is very costly if it fails.  A 2HP generator is $200 or less (4 stroke) and is much easier to experiment with, and easier to get running than a car or truck.

Get rid of your ego problems first; get a generator running first - not a truck or car!

What kind of moron would try and get a 3500 pound vehicle running on hydrogen, when you can get an electrical generator for $200 at harbor freight or your nearest hardware store? Not only can you get a generator running on hydrogen, you can get many of them running so that if one fails you have many backups. IF your dune buggy fails, you're screwed! you only have one dune buggy. Having more than one dune buggy is costly and time consuming. Cars are complex. Generators are not complex. Stop wasting your time getting cars to run, do it in baby steps - the generator comes first!

The amount of idiots involved in Stan Meyer replication astounds me.

If you cannot get a 2HP generator running on hydrogen, then it is NOT worth spending time on a 3500 pound volkswagon car. You're wasting your time.

A 2HP generator produces electricity and it only does that. A car does a thousand things. You don't need a thousand things, all you need is electricity. A generator is much more efficient than a car. Forget cars and trucks, just get a damn generator working. Generators can produce 120V and 12V electricity for the cell to run in a closed loop. If a generator doesn't run in a closed loop, then stan's device is not over unity, and it is not extracting energy from another source - it's just 80 percent efficiency or 60 percent, or 90 percent.