Cookies-law

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

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 485508
  • *Total Topics: 14272
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 11
  • *Guests: 263
  • *Total: 274

Facebook

Author Topic: Relative Permittivity of Water  (Read 147628 times)

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #75 on: July 10, 2011, 06:35:25 AM »
these people refuse to believe in the laws of physics no matter how much they fail in any of their projects. everyone of their projects is a failure period.

over unity, where is all the projects proven to the world without a doubt, there is none and will be none. over unity can not even be achieved with anti-matter to matter reactions due to neutrinos. there is no over unity.

it's a pipe dream and will remain to be a bait to all those whole follow it.

Jerry 8)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #75 on: July 10, 2011, 06:35:25 AM »

Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #76 on: July 18, 2011, 10:27:53 AM »
Unity ? how about this....
theoretical speed of light = 299,792,458 Metres sec
permittivity of free space = 8.854 x 10 -12
permeability of free space = 1.2566371 x 10 -6          (4 x pi)

C squared   x   permittivity (electro)   x    permeability (mag)  =  1  , unity   
...yea its text book ...anyhoo

It might look like I launched an attack on all things stan meyer but thats not the case at all.
Thru the years I havent seen anyone step out of line over stans info , its completely unbalanced view where no one dares to question the sacred scrolls of stan meyers.
Theres 50 (32 + 18) formulas /equations(?) in the Tech Brief , 15 are completely BOGUS , thats
30 % ! .... SURELY thats enough to set alarm bells ringing.

BOGUS CIRCUIT DRAWINGS ARE ALSO A FINANCIAL DETERRENT = EXPENSIVE DOOR STOPS / PAPER WIEGHTS OR WHITE ELEPHANTS....EVENTUALLY.

Research requires ground work to double check formulas ,theory and any references in order to find a foundation but if that is not there ,its all over...NO MONEY SPENT. (YAY)

**Theres only 1 video segment that stands out and can be seen as clear evidence , thats his early bench top display showing the presure gauge climbing which also means theres increasing presure on the rising bubbles.
Theres 2 possibilities at that rate ,= Gas or steam , steam shows condensation that cant be hidden.
If there was V and I readings that segment would be rock solid ,theres no electrolyte or gas processor.

Stan said " you have to ask the right question"
Most obvious question should be 1# ; After spending $1,000,000 on patents , why would stan give away the circuit for $35 ? ? ?
He wouldnt show Eugene Mallove or Walter Rosenthal anything so what value is stans info to anyone if it was of no use to these 2 genuine researchers .
Walter Rosenthal was a leading test engineer.

A report from either of these men would be reliable and complete , the Dublin report and International Independent report are SHOCKING with no content and absolute rubbish, compiled by stan himself ! Independent ?

Another good trick stan utilised was Auto Suggestion.. k.i.s.s = keep(56) it(22) simple(72-A) stupid(AA) dont(46) think(22-A) for (44) yourself(77) and(41) dont(23) step(A1) out(A2) of(57) line(F_1) you(F-2) might(45) give(35usc) the(101) game(78) away(9-11)


Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #77 on: July 23, 2011, 05:21:11 AM »
Here we go again..(got another one)
@ ALL..
nowhere have I said his invention didnt work
nowhere have I said it cant be done or impossible
nowhere have I discouraged anyone directly or indirectly
I was told I was misleading and putting personal theories forward , everything is text book and using other peoples data so that it is beyond my control and cant be manipulated**

IF it irritates people to see stans info hacked open...thats a GOOD thing, its called waking up.
Whats wrong with doing an HONEST UNBIASED breakdown of stan meyers info ? ? ?
who does it hurt ? and WHY ?

http://www.free-energy-info.com/P8.pdf

Anyone seeking truth and hidden secrets in stans Tech Brief have to face the facts...there aren't the kindve secrets people would hope for.
THE TRUTH INDICATES DELIBERATE INTENTIONAL DECEPTION.
I put forward plenty of examples to chew on ,instead of pointing the finger at me have a go at stan meyers....what have I done ? ? ?

EQ 6 ,7 ,9 ,14 ,17 ,19 ,21 ,28 ,29   ,  have a GO

GASOLINE C10 H8....= NAPHTHALENE , moth balls ..classic.
How can people NOT see that one ? ?
These are examples of stans secrets hidden in his info.
It is only FAIR that I show stans info as an example of MISINFO for those who dont know what misinfo looks like.

As for sacrifice , what did he sacrifice ? ....in hind sight , his country, the environment + people ,good thing he didnt have kids or he'd sacrifice them too.
He was not a messiah or savior, it makes no difference if hes alive or dead, he did not give away his circuit, info or product and NEVER would, thats not good bussiness, bussiness is TRANSACTION.
Stephen meyers is still alive , does it make any difference?  HE could
stephen Horvath is still alive, does it make any difference?  HE could
Stan Meyers WAS alive , DID HE MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE? ? HE COULD HAVE

Stan meyers as a "christian" is irrelevant,, "jesus is lord" is irrelevant, stan was a bussinessman, that is relevant to money and people as customers not brothers and sisters or Gods lil' flock
A bussinessman can not betray his own Nature = Bussiness -before- man.

People need to read his info without being so biased and prejudice. Look beyond the "jesus is lord" and "God I love my country"
READ FIRST , then judge...evaluate...you might be surprised and find clarity.   

Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #78 on: July 23, 2011, 05:32:03 AM »
Next Im going to reach into my old pile of crap and pull out stans 1989 NZ house meeting,  its on VHS and from the 90s so it wont have - time of quote - written next to anything.

I tried to find a link on youtube , couldnt find anything any where . So this ones for the cave men out there , ..power to ya.

Theres no way Im going to transcribe this damn thing , I have very little interest in its contents but from memory theres a few swifties in there , Ol stan doing the shifty, straight as a dogs hind leg he was.

Second thoughts , the box is even too ugly, I cant face this thing , it can wait till tomorrow.....

It hasnt got copy right written on it either .. oh yay what gold..


Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
1989 NZ HOUSE MEETING / TALK n CHALK
« Reply #79 on: July 24, 2011, 07:16:01 AM »
Quotes of stan meyers NOT ME **
This has not been fun at all , Ive only done some obvious bits in the first 1/3 of the tape , stuff the rest.

According to stan ,
Patent office = "why has no one else thought about this technology before?"

stan = " ..but here to fore (?) anyone EVER dreamed of using potential energy to form a voltage to perform work in order to pull apart the water molecule"

Making these claims is dismissive to previous inventors, their work and actual inventions.
Does that imply that Horvath and Puharich had plain ol electrolysis ?

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

The Selden patent did the same thing with road locomotives
Bell labs did the same thing with the transistor
Points to one thing ,  MONOPOLY and Market Domination

Resistive choke discussion;..resistive wire etc

Stan; " in filing of patents , I* filed them in several ways -"then he says I use it this way"... you have a hard time*  getting around me because not only have I filed patents on the particular technology but I filed patents on all its related areas to give me a technological buffer zone to be able to ensure that I* can bring the technology in"
(**Stan;" it wont be Stan Meyers to bring it it" -1997 Denver)

"well sorry folks I got it both ways"
"and if you look at all OUR (?) patents , you apply voltage across that water molecule youve violated my patent rights"

That sounds alot like the MONSANTO attitude towards nature, very christian. It also indicates the Monopoly bussiness mind.
The Tech Brief is Stans technological buffer zone to keep replicators going in circles, which is demonstrated year after year. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

1989 NZ HOUSE MEETING / TALK n CHALK
« Reply #79 on: July 24, 2011, 07:16:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #80 on: July 24, 2011, 07:34:44 AM »
VIC Discussion;

Stan; "if I hit this at 10 khz would this NOT increase it to 20 khz?"

Stan; "so not only is this a pulsing circuit to restrict amp flow, it also is a frequency multiplier.....and GUESS what else ?....if I was going to increase more Hydrogen gas yield ,what else would I do?"

response; "increase the voltage"

stan; "yes ,now how would I do that ?"
" would I need to change the pulsing circuit here?"

response; "just change the amplitude of it"

stan: "all I have to do here is just increase the number of turns of this coil, would I NOT ?"

(* NO , more turns = more inductance = lower frequency = pulse circuit change of frequency, the centre freq has SHIFTED )
The circuit drawn on the blackboard = Fig 1-1 (AA) , is not a pulse forming network or Voltage doubler. It is not in the same catagory as a Villard gen , Marx gen, CW cascade or pulse forming network , which are all V doublers.
LC in parallel can be called Parallel resonant , Anti resonant , a Trap or Tank but none contain a diode , half wave rectifier.

Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #81 on: July 24, 2011, 07:58:31 AM »
VIC Discussion;

As soon asthe locals question Inductance in milli Henries or frequency, stan shifts to the other black board.
Stan; "when you release the energy from the water in the form of the Hydrogen gas ,its energy yield is 2 and 1 half times that of gasoline...note the rule of thumb , its not 2 and a half times that of finger nail pollish , its not 2 and a half times that of butter ......its actually 2 and a half times that of gasoline........OK now ?......OK?......all right.."

**ATTENTION SUCCESSFULLY DIVERTED AWAY FROM QUESTIONING = DELIBERATE DIVERSION,
DID HE ANSWER THE QUESTION?

Stan; "the action is really hitting it with the voltage, when your tuning into the resonance and when you hit in resonance under this condition, then the water molecule just falls apart..... OK? ...so ahhh.."

question: "yes but Im asking , what is the resonant frequency of water ?"

Stans reply; ...? Stan launches into water quality , contaminates, ppm etc

IRRELEVANT REPLY = DELIBERATE DIVERSION,  DID HE ANSWER THE STRAIGHT QUESTION ?

Stan ;" under the law of physics says if I got an oxygen atom here thats got ahh...3 missing electrons alright.. there fore I can ...suck it off the ground of earth..see ? to bring them back to stabilize"

(OR ....the negative plate , IF it is a capacitor , its supposed to be according to stan but then Rea Oneill said the water was the source of Voltage but then stan just said electrons can be sucked from ground, what happened to displacement current ?)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #81 on: July 24, 2011, 07:58:31 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #82 on: July 24, 2011, 08:20:16 AM »

The thread   "relative permittivity of water" = fundamental basis of a water capacitor.
Stan doesnt mention effective electric field, internal field 180 degrees to external, opposition, displacement current ,dielectric losses ,hysteresis etc.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dielec.html

http://www.jossresearch.org/tjiirrs/005d.html

A genuine water cap does not produce hydrogen, it stores energy.
Stans water cap story is more than likely diversion tactic.
***Intrinsic properties of water dont allow for what he goes on about.***

As for the rest of the video , I cant look at it any more. Ill point out again , there is no copy right on the VHS video , I hear people a claiming rights . 

Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #83 on: July 31, 2011, 11:30:13 AM »
When reading the Tech Brief pdf you can type in keywords in Select Tools at the top left and itll take you to hi lited pages, keep tapping Next, in FIND.

eg; MONATOMIC= 0 , DIATOMIC= 0, Alternating current= 0, centre frequency = 0, reactance coil = 0 , Quality = 0, oscillation = 40 x , resonance =8 x ,Ohms = 10 x (only) ,78.54 = 6 x,
78.54ohms = 3 x, attenuate = 11 x , attenuated = 6 x , choke = 40 x.

Search does not include diagrams.

An Attenuator is the opposite of an amplifier, it removes POWER from a signal... yet another way for stan meyer to stick it up replicators , he didnt say replicators are going to bring it in.

A reactance coil has high Xl but low R ,also called a choke coil . (Q= X / R )

Stan wrote " 11.6 K ohm coil " , if thats R measurement like aaron murakami beleived it to be , then it is NOT a reactance coil and if its SS 430 then theres the problem of skin depth and skin effect , especially for AWG 44 as murakami claimed to use.
I couldnt find the waterfuel.100free  Qiman/murakami site , it mustve been taken down ,I would guess he would want that to dissapear .

Stan said water becomes an electronic component ,... so how is that component connected?
the plates can be series or parallel but the water is neither , it is a uniform body.
10 years ago I made individual cells so they could be genuine series , parallel  configuration without sharing the same body of water.
Testing was also done with/out using HV series cap coupling to add XC and block DC.
The conclusion = water caps do not produce hydrogen
 Cells produce hydrogen using DC or diodes
Also water itself has attenuation coefficient which limits the range of radio signals

Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #84 on: July 31, 2011, 11:50:25 AM »
One day stans Tech Brief will be seen as useful as the Fast Freddy Hydrostar manual and that really is a pile.
Im genuinely shocked how long stans info has hung around without being evaluated by ANYONE , (try and find one)
Its not like its a hard thing to do , its chocka full of mistakes and misinfo.
Stan Meyers is stone cold dead but still has remote control of people.  unbelievable

I had a look at climtechsolutions evaluation of Bob Boyce circuit , these guys are Nutech2000 , Ian and co . 
I think this is the page .... hes another freddy dud.

http://www.climtechsolutions.com/?page_id=3/bob-boyce/test-results-sept-27-08-for-bob-boyce-cell/page-1


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #84 on: July 31, 2011, 11:50:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #85 on: August 01, 2011, 01:05:48 AM »
...OK maybe thats not the page I was after...

http://www.climtechsolutions.com/?page_id=3/bob-boyce/the-august-d9-bob-boyce-update-for-the-bob-boyce-team/page-1

http://www.climtechsolutions.com/?page_id=3/bob-boyce/page-1

This is a great example where a genuine team hit a project and shows the money invested , NO different from Stans Tech Brief and the mountains of money people throw at trying to replicate WFC .   

**$ 3000 **  and these are guys who know what theyre doing , so imagine someone who has no idea and theyre burning money that they actually need instead of building a door stop.

Ian and his bunch have monthly meetings in Melbourne and are not hobbiest they are genuine researchers.


Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #86 on: August 07, 2011, 08:38:26 AM »

Stan= "when your tuning into the resonance and when you hit in resonance under this condition ,then the water molecule just falls apart"

NO , it doesnt, the Z machine uses water because it doesnt fall apart under huge stress, single firing , NOT resonance , for a reason.

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

What about the dielectric properties of paraffin= 1.9 -2.5 , mineral oil =2.2 , silicon oil = 2.2 -2.7 , olive oil = 3.11 ,Castor oil =4.7 ,alcohol =16 -31 ,acetone =21.3, methanol =22 ....etc.

All these figures are well below 78.54 @ 25C specific ,so why not lower the bar and aim low .
Any one who can be bothered will find the obvious = NO BREAKDOWN OF DIELECTRIC in an AC resonant circuit.

Water intrinsic properties = permittivity + resistivity , the shunt R does not go away, and Power dissipates in R.

Gating is yet another one of Stans tricks , IF people were honest about it , no one has a genuine reason for why it is at all neccessary other than Stan said so.
*Stans word ?   he was definitely an artist.

With all caps , max Ohms is achieved with zero frequency .
1 uf @ 10 khz = 16 ohms,
1 uf @ 1 hz  = 159 K ohms
1 uf @ zero freq DC = open circuit = max ohms
* opens circuit without breaking it.

http://www.66pacific.com/calculators/xc_calc.aspx

Z machine and lasers use single shot where max ohms are and max charging current = power.

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=vn0-Z6cLphgC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=blue+laser+water+capacitor&source=bl&ots=DzZqxmmXyZ&sig=Niino6LB6H5whesWkrb9ipcN20I&hl=en&ei=Myk-ToWGMcOHrAfax6ztDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA

Excimer laser,
note page 87 " just before the water ionizes and loses its insulating properties"

Heading ; Beyond solar cells and IC = "...manipulate chemical reactions with light..."






Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #87 on: August 07, 2011, 09:01:06 AM »
Stans Denver 1997 video.

DENVER 27:21 = " Creativity comes from God , if its beneficial for mankind and I just simply asked a prayer to God , if you show me a way , I love my country , its the greatest country in the world , Ill do anything you want me to do "

JOB 27:21 = "The east wind carrieth him away , and he departeth: and as a storm hurleth him out of his place.

JOB 27:8 = "For what is the hope of the hypocrite ,though he hath gained , when God taketh away his soul ?"
      27:9 = " Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him? "

WHOA ....

Stan did his best to stamp out any creativity in everyone else by selling misinfo and avoiding questions .

http://www.free-energy-info.com/P8.pdf

http://www.free-energy-info.com/MeyerData.pdf

One for the price of 2 ,  "through the eyes of a Bussinessman" thats $70 US

Nothing stan wrote is useable , FIG 1-1 AA circuit is BOGUS , 8XA circuit is BOGUS.
Eugene Mallove wouldve made mince meat out of Stan if allowed to question Stan in full.
But...then who would listen?
Stans supporters cant actually pin point exactly ,what it is that they support

Offline CompuTutor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #88 on: August 07, 2011, 02:27:42 PM »
You really have been on quite a walk-a-bout
for quite a long time now haven't you...

Have you convinced yourself yet ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Torana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #89 on: August 13, 2011, 12:35:40 AM »
Convince myself of?
Can you see what actually unfolded?      The facts dont change for anyone.
Have you studied stans info?  Did you fall for it?

I first heard of stan in the 90s but like anyone else back then who had any tech knowledge, once the info is read properly and thoroughly, its RUBBISH!
Im not the first to discover that fact, alot of people walked away from stan back then.
IF I started a thread hammering stan , Id be banned at day one.  I still havent hammered stan, he had full control of his words, he wrote them.
Minde4000 pushed the button and BINGO! great timing.
nowhere have I doubted stans invention, the thread is about permittivity of water, which is fundamental to a water capacitor.

Water is not a simple subject, there is no   "simple stick"**
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/sitemap.html

A cell is not a capacitor , its funny how stan(WFC) meyers shifted everyones focus to capacitance, theres no mention of cell function in his info or videos .(no cap function either)
Ive done testing in the 90s , a water cap does not produce gas, nor should it, a cell does produce gas and so it should.

No where have I discouraged anyone, I tried to help H2Opower , he did not like that flavour at all.
NOTE; nobody else offered, which says alot ,obviously slipped past the sharpest eyes.(HOW?)
He wants 863.94 ohms for 11 series caps, why 863.94?
863.94 / 11 = 78.54 ohms,  that is the crippling effect of stan meyers.

He said it was the dielectric value of water.
Is that a fact in science, chemistry, physics, EE or electronics?
NO , its a meaningless figure and irrelevant.

Im not trying to convince anyone, nor discourage anyone.  Whats the benefit?
If anything ,Its a heads up.
Obviously your paying attention, theres a few hits, lets be honest , 88 of those are yours.

Notice I havent ripped anyone down

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Relative Permittivity of Water
« Reply #89 on: August 13, 2011, 12:35:40 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: