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: Stanley Meyers revisited  (Read 47900 times)

PULSED)ReverseH/Ofuelcell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #45 on: June 28, 2007, 09:42:17 AM »
Anyone who is entrusted and serious about replicating or helping us replicate the water fuel cell please go to "http://www.waterfuelcell.org/Resources.html" and join the forum! Also it mite help to look at my other post WATER FUEL CELL: HIGH VOLTAGE: WHOLE PROCESS it shows everything I?ve learnt so far. How to build all the chokes transformers and capacitors and stuff!

All help is wanted!

Thanks,

Pulsed,
« Last Edit: July 06, 2007, 11:53:07 AM by PULSED)ReverseH/Ofuelcell »

kentoot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #46 on: June 28, 2007, 06:01:01 PM »
@chuck

Yes, it isn't so easy to build a variable inductor / transformer. But if the variable winding is indeed for HV pulse amplitude tuning, then I believe there is another solution. I believe you don't even need the variable winding if the input square wave duty cycle is adjustable, in Stanley's case it's fixed to 50%.

So I suppose you can try NOT putting the variable winding at all, just make the step-up transformer and the top fixed winding. The bottom variable winding is gone, so the on that side the WFC is connected directly to the transformer. Then you can adjust the HV pulse amplitude by varying the voltage and duty cycle of the input (primary) square wave.

On the winding location I think it doesn't matter all that much where you put the secondary windings on the toroid core. You can put it on top of the primary winding or put it on another area of the toroid.

On adjusting the duty cycle of the input wave, try not to saturate the transformer because it will cause excessive wasteful current consumption. So on adjusting the duty cycle, try with small ON values first (maybe 10% ON, 90% OFF) and increase the ON period bit by bit until your pulse can actually cause a voltage build-up on the WFC.

Also I believe in order to achieve the voltage build-up on the WFC, the WFC mechanical construction must follow closely Stan's configuration. If you decide to alter the electrode configuration or distance, then the transformer winding may also need to be changed. This is because a (pulse) transformer can only deliver so much energy before it saturates. If you increase the gap or area of the WFC electrodes, the transformer will have to be wounded some more turns so it will be able to store & deliver more power to the WFC. I believe the electronics and the WFC mechanical configuration is very much inter-related. we just can't design the WFC separately and expect the same electronics to work for all sort of WFC.

passion1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #47 on: July 05, 2007, 07:58:31 AM »
@chuck


On adjusting the duty cycle of the input wave, try not to saturate the transformer because it will cause excessive wasteful current consumption. So on adjusting the duty cycle, try with small ON values first (maybe 10% ON, 90% OFF) and increase the ON period bit by bit until your pulse can actually cause a voltage build-up on the WFC.

Kentoot

Thank you for the advice. When you say "adjusting the duty cycle, try with small ON values first", do you mean the duty cycle of each individual pulse must be 10% (instead of 50% as per Meyers patent) or are you referring to the gate duty cycle, i.e. to switch a train of pulses on for 10% of the time and off for 90% of the time?

keithturtle

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 302
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #48 on: July 05, 2007, 08:50:20 AM »
I would think the latter, with no pulses at all for 90% of the duty cycle.   I'm working with that chapps controller, but my scope cain't figger out the two different sets of pulses.

Or mebbe it's me...

Back to the pond,
Turtle

kentoot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #49 on: July 05, 2007, 09:29:04 AM »
It's the duty cycle of individual pulse. The reason that 50% may not be valid is because we might not have the same exact electronics and WFC setup as Stan did. It might be fine for him, but it's a different story for us, since we change this and that to our own taste.

For example, if we use different kind of toroid core & different no. of turns, that means the saturation point will also be different. That's why we should try with a small ON duty cycle first, and slowly raise the ON period bit by bit until we can see a gradual voltage build-up on the WFC electrode.

What if we don't see that voltage build-up even at 99% ON duty cycle? well, please don't forget to put the diode in series with the transformer (this is an absolute must for charge build-up), if that's in place then my guess would be that the transformer doesn't have enough power to deliver the necessary HV pulse 'punch' to the WFC or there's something wrong with the WFC.

Maybe the WFC 'leaking' too much charge, in that case try to isolate the water between the electrodes as much as possible. If the charge in the water can 'move' to a lower potential point, then we have ourselves a leakage. The charge (and the water) should remain between the electrodes.

If the transformer is not good enough, maybe we should increase the turns (while the ratio remains intact), or increase the ratio, or maybe switch to a toroid with a bigger core dimension to allow more energy storage in the transformer. Who knows, it might just work. Or you could try to put the WFC electrodes slightly closer together. Well, anyway, this is all easy for me to say :), it's a lot tougher when you actually do it.
 
For the gated pulse train, I believe it's for the water to 'rest' or 'recover' (whatever that means) once the pulses successfully dissociate the water. So the pulses should stop once the water dissociate, let the water 'rest' (i'm not comfortable with this term :)) for a while before the voltage build-up process starts again with a new pulse train. So again the number of pulses needed for water dissociation maybe different from 1 configuration to another, I believe it's not a fixed no. of pulses. But let's not concentrate on this, concentrate first on getting the charge build-up successfully, first things first.

 

popeye68

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #50 on: July 16, 2007, 05:38:33 PM »

What you guys think of this one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y__YCvFF8iM#


ForeverBlissed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #51 on: July 16, 2007, 06:42:56 PM »
That video is not really worth commenting on.

I would not be surprised it if was put there by some paid oil company schmuck.

The logic behind the deduction that it is a scam based on the fact that there was a generator located in both the lab and the car is flawed.

This is an experimental system right?

Did they expect to see a finished product?

Give me a break!

FB

TheOne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
    • Amanatsu Games
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #52 on: July 16, 2007, 07:54:45 PM »
yeah i rated this crappy video 0, that deserve only that

disinformation video, obviously his system don't work on 110 volt anyway, it's using ac...

popeye68

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #53 on: July 16, 2007, 07:58:45 PM »

Yeah , but wich milliamps was Meyers measuring...

I think he pulsed the alternator and so got his ramped-pulses , maybe with
faseshifts.

But was he measuring between the puls-unit and the alternator, or
was he measuring whole system powerusage ???
(as he used mains power in this setup..)

I'm not saying it was a scam b.t.w. , just curious ;-)



kentoot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #54 on: July 17, 2007, 04:25:44 AM »
Well, when I see a video with not much info in it except lots of bright red flashing displays ...hmm... most likely we don't have to take it seriously. It's just a joke, but not funny.

All along I knew Stan was not really a theoritical guy, his approach shows this. He was happy enough to get his system in a closed loop, supplying energy to a car, and move on to other things to improve his system. Posititvely thinking, if he was a theoritical guy, most likely he couldn't have went ahead and invent something like this. I feel that's why he didn't really touch much on the theoritical side, he didn't have the urge to do any extensive research in this aspect, he was pretty much a practical kind of guy. I believe he did get it to work, it's just that we can't get much detail measurements from his unit.

Knowing this fact that he was pretty much a pratical guy, I think we shouldn't take his theoritical explanations (in his notes / patent) so literally. Stan just tried his best to explain the things that happened in his cell, but that doesn't necessarily mean it actually happened that way. I believe he didn't put on purpose some disinformation to confuse / distract us, it's just his way of explaining things. So we should know how to read his patents, and extract the useful informations.

I believe if we want to replicate Stan's work, just do exactly that, REPLICATE, nothing else. Try to design something as close as possible to Stan's configuration. That way even if Stan's theory is a bit off, we can still get the system to work first. Our design should be based on his findings, not purely on his theories. If we venture off doing other things with Stan's theoritical explanation backing us up, well ... I think it's a long shot, but it IS possible ... who knows.

Regarding the milliamp readings, I really think we should just try it ourselves. This kind of detail measurements and other know how, I believe that's our task to find out. So that in the future it's easier to make Stan's system with different configurations.

popeye68

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #55 on: July 17, 2007, 11:21:38 AM »
Hi Kentoot ,

i think the alternator is a very important part of the Meyers setup
and maybe the effect is not reached without it...

Bob Boyce had succes with his cell's also due to an alternator issue;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2637.0.html

His posts have vallueable information , also on cell preperation etc.

on http://www.oupower.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1
you can find more nice info , also from Bob Boyce

« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 12:32:41 PM by popeye68 »

kentoot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2007, 04:20:27 AM »
Thanks for the info Popeye, I'll look into it. It's a lot to digest :).

Yes, I agree that the alternator is very important. It's important because the alternator is able to deliver the necessary pulse to the cell. In fact, alternator, in many ways, is similar to a transformer. Why ? Because an alternator has wire coils (basically inductors) that generates the output voltage, just like a transformer secondary winding. In order to generate the output voltage, that coil receives a changing magnetic field. In an alternator, that changing field is from the rotating magnet on the rotor, while in a transformer, it's the primary coil.
Most alternator have more than 1 phase, this is to minimize the ripple when converting to DC (using bridge diodes, got modified in Bob Boyce's case ??). Also the rotor field is usually adjustable, to regulate the output voltage. Nevertheless, the concept of an alternator and a transformer is the same. I guess you could say that a transformer is some sort of solid state version of an alternator.

keithturtle

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 302
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2007, 04:30:55 AM »
From what I've read, the alternaotor can be replaced by electronics, specifically hi-rate switching MOSFET transistors.   Apparently these weren't as developed whenever Stan was doing his early work.   One patent dated 1983 shows an elaborate mechanical device capable of producing the desired D C pulses needed to make his water fuel cell work.

Turtle

kentoot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2007, 07:09:11 AM »
Yes, I agree, most likely the alternator role can be replaced with a switching device, such as MOSFET, and a transformer. I'll try my luck with the transformer & MOSFET.

h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Stanley Meyers revisited
« Reply #59 on: July 18, 2007, 07:38:25 AM »
Hi Everyone, this is too let everyone know I am still alive ;D
Newman's technology and tesla's works really help on understanding just what is going on.

This is a video too let you know just who is in charge of the planet: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&total=662&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

This is a video of the work I am aiming at right now with Meyer's technology:
http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/extras/0707/hydro.html

I am short on funds as always so progress is slow, but I am makeing good head way in my understanding of it all 8). On that "Scam" video it is nothing more than an attemp to brain wash you with flashing images of the word, if one reads the court files on Stanley's court drama it is very clear that he was railroaded. They even put salt in it to make sure it wouldn't work, and refuse to let stanley speak. It was a joke of a case, and the Judge should be stripped of his title.

As for the coils all of them are bifilar wond, but once you read the Newman pdf. file you might, just like me, see the light, and know the "why", for without the "why" you are lost, just trying to copy, when it demands that you understand it.

I hope all of us trying the best of luck, and God speed to our sucess