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 Meyer information  (Read 5419 times)

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Stanley Meyer information
« on: January 12, 2022, 07:53:24 AM »

I first explained this in a different thread, but it seems I was stepping on some toes. It is evident that the author of that thread was trying to come up with capital for his own replication commercialization under the title Stan Meyer explained, which was misleading.


Anyway, I can understand some ruffled feathers if he hoped to make a buck. Personally, I am not out to make a buck on over-unity, so my information, for what it is worth is free to anyone and everyone.

Now that all of Stanley Meyer's patents are available for download and are expired (most due to fees), I thought I would share some information about his machine which many might find interesting and/or helpful. I suggest you all download the patents. You can find the list of patents here - https://patents.justia.com/inventor/stanley-meyer - just search the patent numbers on google and the first link will be that patent at the google patent site, where you can download the pdf for each.


A basic breakdown of the device -- Stanley was using a unique square wave DC waveform (from patents) of high voltage (both patents and videos) at a claimed (patents) 20khz frequency in a resonant cavity (patents and videos). His idea is both simple and brilliant in it's own way.


A basic breakdown of the process -- The concept is quite simple, in essence he put the molecules under stress using the capacitive effect with a high voltage field on one side of the water capacitor, then "hit" the molecules with a sharp even higher voltage pulse to make the molecules fracture. Both simple and elegant. It is a form of destructive resonance, similar in nature to using a particular harmonic resonance of sound to break crystal glass.


The process is simple, and his circuit will not be the only one of that type that will work to do the job. Using DC or rectified high voltage AC would be best, but AC not so much. Remember, we are treating the water cell as a CAPACITOR, which is very important if you want to apply a powerful electric field across the dielectric. The goal is massive breakdown of a self healing dielectric, just UNDER the point where it arcs (arcing is bad, lol). The higher the pulse voltage the better, so long as it doesn't actually arc, but the field voltage should be still high voltage too. Imagine five thousand volts producing the field, with a twenty kilohertz or so string of pulses slamming the dielectric at 7 to 10k volts. The circuit you use should be geared to produce as little amperage as possible. Remember that when measuring the strength of an electric field, you are concerned with voltage, not amperage.


How is it different from regular electrolysis? In every way... Regular electrolysis uses amperage (brute force) to rip the molecules apart, which TYPE of an approach is never efficient in any sense of the word. Which is more efficient, energy wise, to pull a bolt in half or to shear it in half? I ask this because the same type of bonds are being broken in the example, the weak force. The strong force holds individual atomic structures together, but the weak force is what holds atom to atom to form a molecule. Electrolysis also produces a ton of wasted energy in the form of heat, which should have been the indicator that efficiency wise, it sucks.


Also, please note that Stanley Meyer was trying hard to market everything from the fuel cell tech to such things as hydrogen powered vehicle technology, which most if not all of you already know. What many MAY NOT KNOW is that it is common practice when applying for a patent on commercial subjects to add fluff or misdirection into the patent application to prevent others from easily copying and taking your idea, using a patent for a blueprint. Even Tesla used these techniques, so don't blame Stanley, lol. What did Stanley incorporate as fluff? Lasers, for one thing. Note that the device he used to prove the patent is the same device demonstrated on the documentary "It runs on water" (still available on Youtube) of which Stanley Meyers has a segment dedicated to him. That device did not have one laser attached -- not even a bright light source of any kind. It just had the capacitive cell (simple tube/rod style with multiple tubes) and a power supply circuit you plugged into the wall and flipped a switch to make it work. What it DIDN'T have is a complex  mass of special circuitry, lasers, and other stuff which made the hydro powered buggy look like something from NASA (most of that was fluff -- eye candy for pictures and videos), none of which is required to make an engine run off of hydrogen.


Auto maker already know how to do that even with normally aspirated carbureted engines. People forget that what made Stanley's car so unique was not the fuel it ran on, it was the efficient hydrogen fuel on demand system that could be powered by the car engines electrical output. (Supposed over-unity on a system that they don't even know what unity really is, because their measuring standard is comparable to using a sledgehammer to crack walnuts.)


How much energy is available from even gasoline?


By their AD 1400-1900 "modern" measuring standards, E=mc^2 is way over-unity, but that is how much energy is theoretically available from any mass (including gasoline) without even having to resort to something oddball, such as quantum mechanics or zero point energy.


Once the fluff is removed, you come up with quite simple logic.


Now, I doubt that anyone is going to have an easy time of it, excepting those experimenters that are already familiar with high voltage circuitry (I am not talking about "Tesla" coils either). I am talking about DC NOT AC. A lower voltage Tesla coil could be used, if you can find a rectifier diode that will handle both the frequency and the voltage.


Why high frequency? Each pulse will yield a few bubbles of hydrogen, IE each pulse will only produce a small amount of hydrogen. The higher the frequency, the more hydrogen produced in a given time span. Too high of a pulse rate will cause too much hydrogen/oxygen gas to be produced, causing a highly probable high voltage arcing situation within the cell, through said gases, causing the destruction of the unit. IE BOOM.


Making a system that deionizes the water, thus increasing its dielectric value, will likely increase the output as well, but that would have to be tested and is just a guess of mine. The concept of actual water based dielectric "water capacitors" is not new. That may well be what initially gave Stanley the idea to turn one into a hydrogen generator, if he was using one to make a tesla coil or something similar. I know he was interested in and admired Tesla due to various comments he made on various videos regarding the man, as well as other things.


Food for thought anyway.


Paul Andrulis



kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2022, 11:12:51 AM »
Quote
I solved the SM TPU issue, but who cares?
Bull's-eye. I also made a fake device with a hidden battery.
But for the purpose of a social experiment, to see how people react.
Not with bad or selfish intentions.
No one found the battery, but they were not interested how it can be working either. :)
Boring, sad faces ... I don't understand this world.
Nobody needs ideas, everyone only needs money. :D

MasterPlaster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 530
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2022, 12:33:02 PM »
Paul,
As you have your Hydrogen extraction thinking cap on,   I want to point out that I am thinking of the problem in an INVERTED way.Where there is water, there is Oxygen as well as Hydrogen.If you extract the Oxygen what are you left with?Apparently Ozonators are a huge technology.
When you have your water cell / capacitor as bubbles are produced the capacitance changes from instant to instant.I am studying patent US3,800,210  now "SYSTEM FOR THE ELECTRIC SUPPLY OF A VARABLE CAPACTIVE LOAD" Notice figure 10.And I wonder if Stan ever looked at patent US3,899,685.

h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2022, 10:11:57 PM »
Congrats on making your own thread🥳[/font][/size].


After you read my last post and the PM I sent you I hope you can see now how wrong some of your theories are as you simply aren't asking the right questions. I did most things by way of actual hands on experimenting. I ponied up the cash to get the tools I needed to get to be able to take readings in an isolated environment. Spent loads of money buying the wire I needed, having things built correctly for me, and paying all of those minimum buy stuff as well as getting around those that only sell their wares to other businesses. I designed all of what I am using, except the circuits and I showed a lot of my work. Since I started that thread way back in 2009 I felt it was time to move on and moved it to a place were I am allowed to try and raise the capital I need as I move forwards to bring this technology to the marketplace.

There are so many barriers towards getting a working prototype that we all must go through if one wishes to have a working model. But I find a lot of how you think about this technology actually being able to help humanity in it's greatest time of need just flat out wrong. I say to you; "What about all those that are elderly?" "What about all those that are young?" "What about all those in our world that are mentally of physically handicap?" how are all these people supposed to get this technology? "What about those that are abjectly poor making less than a few hundred dollars in a year?" how are they supposed to get this technology? "What about all those in our world that simply find themselves all thumbs with it comes to working with or trying to do anything mechanical or design anything?" Again I ask you how are they supposed to be able to get their hands on this technology?
You see in your approach you leave out billons upon billions of people on this planet. You provide them with no hope to be able to get free from the energy enslavement system we are all trapped in right now. I'm on the other hand am trying to bring this technology to the marketplace where I intend on selling it as low as I can afford to do so giving people a product that is designed in a way where it will not harm anyone who buys it as the technology must also be made safe for use for as with all fuels the fuel must be respected in order to be safe for use by the public at large.
You see this is something I have already been through before as when I poised these questions to the Open Source community in the past I was told all those that can build this technology for themselves, "It sucks to be them." I didn't like that response one bit as it left out everyone in my family but myself and my family is on the large side. So at that point I decided to take matters into my own hands and be the one that brought the technology to those that need it the most. See how anti-capitalist I am? You try and paint me as a capitalist but it should be clear to you know I hate that system of governance but am only using it as it has taken control of our world and I have no choice as those that created the markets did so way before I was born and thus I have to follow some of their rules. Anytime anyone buys anything they are subject to the rules of the markets. The only way around this is to trade amongst ourselves. So you see this is all old news to me as I have been here before. As I stated before, "Time is on my side," as that thread you posted in without reading what was actually in it is going on 13 years old now. Being that I started into this technology in 2006 I can say I have pretty much seen it all now. But you go right ahead as don't let me stop you as perhaps you are my replacement since I am getting old now. Who knows?


This will more than likely be the only time I post in your thread out of respect. The only reason I posted is you mentioned my thread and I thought I'd set the record straight about my thread as to where it's been to where it is now heading. I started things off as a challenge, which no one accepted, and ended up trying to bring this technology into the marketplace. I've been through the school of hard knocks, though I don't think it is done with me yet, and have come out knowing a great deal more than I did when I went in.
Now this is a recent barrier I am forced to deal with and overcome. I just got an email from the company I buy the high voltage resin from telling me that they moved locations and now have a new MOQ of 30 gallons minimum order quantity with the corresponding hardener which makes the minimum buy for me 60 gallons since the mix ratio is 1:1 for this resin. How would you deal with this problem? Well, unless you find a new supplier you too will have to deal with this problem sometime in the future as you move to actually build things correctly that last more than a few hours or minutes.


So, welcome to the world of the REAL!


Take care and I hope you give what I have written some thought.
Shalom,
Edward Mitchell

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2022, 06:31:18 AM »
Congrats on making your own thread🥳[/font][/size].


After you read my last post and the PM I sent you I hope you can see now how wrong some of your theories are as you simply aren't asking the right questions. I did most things by way of actual hands on experimenting. I ponied up the cash to get the tools I needed to get to be able to take readings in an isolated environment. Spent loads of money buying the wire I needed, having things built correctly for me, and paying all of those minimum buy stuff as well as getting around those that only sell their wares to other businesses. I designed all of what I am using, except the circuits and I showed a lot of my work. Since I started that thread way back in 2009 I felt it was time to move on and moved it to a place were I am allowed to try and raise the capital I need as I move forwards to bring this technology to the marketplace.

There are so many barriers towards getting a working prototype that we all must go through if one wishes to have a working model. But I find a lot of how you think about this technology actually being able to help humanity in it's greatest time of need just flat out wrong. I say to you; "What about all those that are elderly?" "What about all those that are young?" "What about all those in our world that are mentally of physically handicap?" how are all these people supposed to get this technology? "What about those that are abjectly poor making less than a few hundred dollars in a year?" how are they supposed to get this technology? "What about all those in our world that simply find themselves all thumbs with it comes to working with or trying to do anything mechanical or design anything?" Again I ask you how are they supposed to be able to get their hands on this technology?
You see in your approach you leave out billons upon billions of people on this planet. You provide them with no hope to be able to get free from the energy enslavement system we are all trapped in right now. I'm on the other hand am trying to bring this technology to the marketplace where I intend on selling it as low as I can afford to do so giving people a product that is designed in a way where it will not harm anyone who buys it as the technology must also be made safe for use for as with all fuels the fuel must be respected in order to be safe for use by the public at large.
You see this is something I have already been through before as when I poised these questions to the Open Source community in the past I was told all those that can build this technology for themselves, "It sucks to be them." I didn't like that response one bit as it left out everyone in my family but myself and my family is on the large side. So at that point I decided to take matters into my own hands and be the one that brought the technology to those that need it the most. See how anti-capitalist I am? You try and paint me as a capitalist but it should be clear to you know I hate that system of governance but am only using it as it has taken control of our world and I have no choice as those that created the markets did so way before I was born and thus I have to follow some of their rules. Anytime anyone buys anything they are subject to the rules of the markets. The only way around this is to trade amongst ourselves. So you see this is all old news to me as I have been here before. As I stated before, "Time is on my side," as that thread you posted in without reading what was actually in it is going on 13 years old now. Being that I started into this technology in 2006 I can say I have pretty much seen it all now. But you go right ahead as don't let me stop you as perhaps you are my replacement since I am getting old now. Who knows?


This will more than likely be the only time I post in your thread out of respect. The only reason I posted is you mentioned my thread and I thought I'd set the record straight about my thread as to where it's been to where it is now heading. I started things off as a challenge, which no one accepted, and ended up trying to bring this technology into the marketplace. I've been through the school of hard knocks, though I don't think it is done with me yet, and have come out knowing a great deal more than I did when I went in.
Now this is a recent barrier I am forced to deal with and overcome. I just got an email from the company I buy the high voltage resin from telling me that they moved locations and now have a new MOQ of 30 gallons minimum order quantity with the corresponding hardener which makes the minimum buy for me 60 gallons since the mix ratio is 1:1 for this resin. How would you deal with this problem? Well, unless you find a new supplier you too will have to deal with this problem sometime in the future as you move to actually build things correctly that last more than a few hours or minutes.


So, welcome to the world of the REAL!


Take care and I hope you give what I have written some thought.
Shalom,
Edward Mitchell


I understand, as well as reciprocate that I will not clutter your thread as well.


However, please understand that I thought I was commenting on "Stanley Meyer Explained" -- the title of your thread. Maybe I should have read more before commenting or I would have known that your device is NOT a Stanley Meyer based process or device, but a hybrid system based upon Stan, the work of a different doctor, and the revelation from a dream. That makes your system/technique/device your very own, not a replication of anyone else's. In that sense good job!


However, my information is based SOLELY upon the work/statements/videos/patents of one Stanley Meyer, not yours, or that other Doctor. (Bingle or Dingle, can't remember which you said.)


If my information does not match what is required of your system, it is because I have no intention of replicating your device here. My information matches Stanley Meyer's system specifically.


Paul Andrulis




pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2022, 07:33:49 AM »
Paul,
As you have your Hydrogen extraction thinking cap on,   I want to point out that I am thinking of the problem in an INVERTED way.Where there is water, there is Oxygen as well as Hydrogen.If you extract the Oxygen what are you left with?Apparently Ozonators are a huge technology.
When you have your water cell / capacitor as bubbles are produced the capacitance changes from instant to instant.I am studying patent US3,800,210  now "SYSTEM FOR THE ELECTRIC SUPPLY OF A VARABLE CAPACTIVE LOAD" Notice figure 10.And I wonder if Stan ever looked at patent US3,899,685.


Pure oxygen is O2. Ozone is in interesting duck at O3, a allotrope of oxygen that is unstable and easily broken down to an O ion and O2.


I looked up the patent, and it was issued in 1975. Stanley's big start on hydrogen would be between 1980 -- the date he patented his last solar project -- and 1982 when he patented his first hydrogen device.  Is it possible? Yes and no. Most inventors hire Patent Lawyers for a reason, especially back then. Today, we are spoiled as heck, as we can look at patents with a simple internet search. Back in the 70's and 80's what we have today was just a huge wet dream, if that. You had to physically go to the patent office to research patents, or hire a Lawyer to do it for you. It is possible, but doubtful.


He may well have READ something in a technical journal, magazine (numerous at the time highlighted new technology), or science journal though. Unlike today, reading back then was common. I graduated High School in the 80's, so take my word for it, lol. The coil setup in fig 10 is interesting.




pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2022, 08:58:31 AM »
I have already had one person saying "I don't have a clue" in essence, so I am going to start breaking down the relevant information with SOURCES.


Quote

Method for the production of a fuel gas
Patent number: 4936961
Abstract: A method for obtaining the release of a fuel gas mixture including hydrogen and oxygen from water in which the water is processed as a dielectric medium in an electrical resonant circuit.
Type: Grant
Filed: June 16, 1988
Date of Patent: June 26, 1990
Inventor: Stanley A. Meyer

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/stanley-meyer


What can we learn from this Patent? MUCH!!!


First of all, just from the abstract we learn that the water itself is the DIELECTRIC MEDIUM of a RESONANT CIRCUIT. Inside the patent is a wealth of critical information.


"Objects of the Invention"


The "fuel cell" is specifically referred to as a water capacitor. (literal, not figurative, you will see in a moment.)


"Description Of The Preferred Embodiment"


Contained in this section is wall to wall "how it works" information and descriptions of how it is done.


The water between the plates is the dielectric of the capacitor. The capacitor is what he often referred to in the videos as a "resonant cavity." There is a reason - continuing from this section of the patent under (a) - The resonant circuit is a resonant charging choke circuit with an inductance in series with the capacitor. For those who do not know what a resonant charging choke circuit is, that is a circuit where the positive voltage is fed into an inductance to a capacitor, finally to ground. (+LC-) 


Under (b) we learn that the capacitor ("fuel cell") is subjected to a pulsating UNIPOLAR (DC not AC) electric voltage field where the polarity does not pass beyond an arbitrary ground (no arcing). We also learn that the applied unipolar "field charges the molecules and causes them to be distended (expanded or otherwise stretched) by their subjection to electrical polar forces." 


Under (c) we learn that the electric field is pulsating (pulsed DC, not "alternating" AC). The purpose of the applied resonating field is to induce a corresponding resonance within the water molecule itself.


Think of it this way, when the field is strong, the molecule stretches. When it relaxes, the molecule relaxes. A water molecule is two "arms" of hydrogen flexing around a much larger single "body" of oxygen. With each set of wave pulses in a unipolar resonant circuit, the circuit gains energy and the strength of the resonance increases -- and so does the stretch on each molecule. If the water molecules stretch too far, the hydrogen atoms will shear off, not having a choice in the matter.


This basically covers the "what s happening and how, but seriously folks


READ THE ENTIRE PATENT.


It even gives SPECIFIC directions of how various coils are made, of what gauge wire, how many turns, what BRAND and size of toroidal core!!!! It even tells diode types to use and why, with more detailed explanation than you could hope for with this type of replication. It is as close to "how to build it yourself 101" as you will EVER find.


Specifically, again, Patent number 4936961 "Method for production of a fuel gas"




To get an understanding of what he did, this patent makes it obvious. 50% duty cycle square wave is fed into a ~ 5X step up transformer creating high voltage, low current.  This 50% now high voltage DC pulse is fed into an air core inductance which, at collapse of the field, creates another identical DC pulse with a slight gap in between pulses.... that is how you make the funky wave shapes his patents describe. One air core inductance yields a two pulse wave train. Two creates four. Three creates eight, etc., geometrically increasing with each coil. The total wave-train then is fed into the capacitor setup. This induces a charge field across the capacitor (charges the capacitor). Because it is DC, the capacitor holds the charge, like any capacitor. The next wave train to hit it further charges the capacitor, and so on, until the dielectric polarization stress on the molecules becomes too great, and the attraction of the positively charged hydrogen atoms becomes greater than the attraction of the negatively charged oxygen atom holding them in place, and the molecules start to fracture.


The initial circuit may well be able to be built and controlled with a simple 555 timer circuit pulsing a high-voltage NPN tranny! Since you are trying to eliminate amps in favor of pure voltage to create an A (electric) field, without caring about the B (magnetic) field, that simplifies things a lot.


Further in the patent, it is noted that you will have to find the frequency for a given cell/inductance. Capacitance is easy, as water has a dielectric constant of 78.54 at 20 degrees Celsius, so it is a matter figuring plate area, separation distance between plates, and dielectric constant, all plugged into the capacitance calculator just like any other capacitor. Figure out the inductance of the choke coil, then use a LC resonance calculator to find the series resonant frequency of the circuit. Use your O-scope to check your frequency and waveform, and bata-boom.

For the person who hinted I didn't know squat about Stanley Meyer's tech? I call the BS card buddy.


Paul Andrulis


kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2022, 07:04:05 PM »
And why only should water decompose into elements at resonance and high voltage? ;)
Porcelain insulators are used in various radio engineering devices.
Rather high voltages are applied to them, and very different frequencies.
Why don't they resonate and scatter into atoms?
Copper wires carry different currents at different frequencies.
Why has no one ever seen a wire evaporate into atoms?
Why exactly water !?

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2022, 11:03:16 PM »
And why only should water decompose into elements at resonance and high voltage? ;)
Porcelain insulators are used in various radio engineering devices.
Rather high voltages are applied to them, and very different frequencies.
Why don't they resonate and scatter into atoms?
Copper wires carry different currents at different frequencies.
Why has no one ever seen a wire evaporate into atoms?
Why exactly water !?


Curious, what makes you think water is the only substance that breaks down "at resonance and high voltage"? This is all basic chemistry. The force that holds atoms together is called a "chemical bond". These bonds can be covalent, ionic, etc. The field produced and how it is distributed determines the strength of the bond. The individual bonds are NOT high energy, like the force that holds atoms themselves together. Concerning the stronger of the chemical bonds, specifically covalent bonds, it is usually less than 10eV. Hydrogen tends to form an ionic bond (hydrogen bond), which is the weaker of the two mentioned, but this weak bond only joins water molecules to each other and are not the stronger covalent bond that holds the hydrogen atoms to an oxygen atom to form an individual water molecule. The water molecule formed in its normal relaxed state takes a V shaped structure, but with changes of energy the shape can stretch out into a straight line, allowing the molecular structure formed to be able to move, wobble, or "vibrate." This is all known science, nothing new here.


Porcelain (clay fired at high temperatures) is not water and has completely different chemical properties -- apples to oranges.


High frequency breakdown issues happen with varnish, epoxy, and many other really good insulators, with numerous published articles on the subject. High frequency electrolysis is not even new, as there are various technical papers available proposing how to stop it accidentally in such things as batteries. As far as dielectric failure? That problem is as old as the applied concept of capacitors. Covalent (chemical) bonds are broken quite easily if the conditions are right and happen all of the time in nature, I suggest you research the subject. Covalent bonding is all about charge and electron interaction between atoms on an atomic scale.


As far as what will be affected as well as how much a given material will be affected, that is going to be determined by numerous factors, such as inherent covalent bonds etc.


Wires evaporating? I suggest you research the concept of electroplating, lol, where an electric field strips atoms from a conductor, current carried the atoms through a conductive medium, and deposit them on another oppositely charged conductor.


You make it out as if water is something special, but I assure you it isn't -- To turn the question back on you, why is it that water breaks down before the electrodes disintegrate during electrolysis? The answer is the strength of the covalent bonds. Chemistry -- basic electron shell theory leading to chemical bond theory and how the fields of those bonds are spread over the molecular/crystalline structure of metals verses a dipolar molecular structure such as water.


---------------


Understand that not much of any one thing Stanley did or taught was anything new. His non-standard use of known principles is unique. I want to make it clear that nothing is a magic wand, so to speak. High frequency, Resonance, High Voltage, etc., are not magic wands that can be waved at a subject to cause miraculous results. However, used and applied properly, each are capable of some pretty interesting effects that do not happen, or at least in the same manner, without them.


Paul Andrulis
« Last Edit: January 14, 2022, 06:23:01 AM by pauldude000 »

kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2022, 07:13:30 AM »
Quote
Covalent (chemical) bonds are broken quite easily if the conditions are right and happen all of the time in nature, I suggest you research the subject.
I have a degree in chemistry.

Quote
High frequency breakdown issues happen with varnish, epoxy, and many other really good insulators, with numerous published articles on the subject.
Electrical breakdown is not that. You can talk a lot about the development of the process.
In the end, the matter ends with the thermal destruction of the substance.
In a Mylar capacitor, a giant electric field is applied to a thin film.
And completely different frequencies.
It could be expected that at some frequency the film would begin to break down.
But that doesn't happen. :)

h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2022, 07:21:13 AM »
Quote
I first explained this in a different thread, but it seems I was stepping on some toes. It is evident that the author of that thread was trying to come up with capital for his own replication commercialization under the title Stan Meyer explained, which was misleading.


Do you know what this is actually saying? You are calling for the defunding, or in this case never funding, of this technology. For more than twelve years I have watched people like you talk, talk, talk but never lift a finger to actually do anything. If it were up to people like you this photo sums up our chances of getting anything done to actually do something about our climate change problems.


I thought about what you said and went over my entire thread to see if I did or did not give this technology away and I took notes and posted a few pages where I gave the technology away for free but the thread is full of things like that. When I started off I didn't know everything about this technology and sure didn't know what it was trying to mimic in nature. But over time I kept building, testing, observing, and asking and answering questions until I got at the core science behind this technology.


This is not the first time someone has come along and asked everyone to defund or never fund this technology and it probably will not be the last, but the way I see it this technology is key to getting the world off of fossil fuel use. I will keep on trying to do something meaningful towards our climate change problems and would apricate it if you would not say such things to try and encourage folks to not give this technology their support.


Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2022, 07:54:10 AM »
I have a degree in chemistry.
Electrical breakdown is not that. You can talk a lot about the development of the process.
In the end, the matter ends with the thermal destruction of the substance.
In a Mylar capacitor, a giant electric field is applied to a thin film.
And completely different frequencies.
It could be expected that at some frequency the film would begin to break down.
But that doesn't happen. :)


 You have a degree, well good for you. It IS all about covalent bonds and if you actually have a degree in chemistry then you know that to be true, so why the sophistry?


Electrical breakdown, or even thermal destruction of a substance, (though equivalent, they are not necessarily the same) do indeed yield the same product, specifically the separation of atoms within a molecule.


Sophistry aside, who cares whether the bonds of mylar break down or not with frequency? We are not discussing the covalent bonds or chemical structure of mylar. Again, apples to oranges.  You are AVOIDING THE ISSUE.


If you wish for me to start checking the logic behind your statements, I can start with the porcelain or mylar issue in reference to the specific logical fallacy being applied. I can do that if you want. It is a Fallacy of Composition, by the way, as you are claiming that what is (or might be) true of part of the whole (mylar or porcelain in this case) must be true of the whole (all dielectrics including water). Your statement is illogical according to the science concerning logic.


Covalent bonds cover the gamut when talking bonds joining molecular structures, according to chemistry. You have not discredited in any manner one word I have said, at least not according to science, that is.


My question is why are you trying so hard to derail or discredit the topic -- that you are willing to look foolish to anyone else here with a degree in chemistry or even suitable knowledge thereof? If you have a degree in the sciences, then it was required for you to take philosophy, where you were taught the logical fallacies and to avoid their use. Repeated and consistent use demonstrates probable intent.


Paul Andrulis


pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2022, 08:11:29 AM »

Do you know what this is actually saying? You are calling for the defunding, or in this case never funding, of this technology. For more than twelve years I have watched people like you talk, talk, talk but never lift a finger to actually do anything. If it were up to people like you this photo sums up our chances of getting anything done to actually do something about our climate change problems.


I couldn't personally care less about your funding one way or the other. I wish you luck, as far as that goes.


I AM DOING THIS FOR FREE, as I stated. If that is a perceived "threat to your funding" then sorry, but the apology is all you get as I intend to see this through.


For me, this type of stuff is a hobby. For you, if you are trying to make a living out of it, I would follow the example of the guy who made the water hammer OU water heating pump device. He just opened his doors, and started installing working units. People have tried hard to discredit him, but he wasn't claiming it was OU, just extremely efficient. Some of the first people he sold it to were claiming it was OU, specifically a fire department. That is called brilliant marketing. If you claim OU in any sense of the word, your business is dead before it even gets started, even WITH nationwide coverage. Just my two bits of advice.


As far as you talking others into spending money on your venture, that is up to them and I am not advising them one way or the other. Being as it is their money, they are fully capable of deciding what they choose to do with it.


Paul Andrulis

kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2022, 09:10:14 AM »
No, no, I want to do it.
Moreover, I really need it.
The decomposition of water, or the self-oscillating pendulum of Milkovich, is not important.
but nothing works.

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer information
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2022, 10:55:10 AM »
No, no, I want to do it.
Moreover, I really need it.
The decomposition of water, or the self-oscillating pendulum of Milkovich, is not important.
but nothing works.


I like your little laboratory setup. Small, simple and to the point.


Voltage range, over 1kv. Amperage, as close to zero as you can physically get. Treat that little electrolysis unit as a capacitor -- don't add salts or anything else to make it more conductive like you normally would with electrolysis.


Read that patent from front to back, and download and read the other relevant patents -- take notes. Ignore all the BS about lasers that many of the patents reference as necessary, that was all fluff.


The goal is to charge the capacitor to its max without letting it discharge, then keep hitting it with oscillating resonant DC pulses. Use the series LC capacitance formulae. The biggest question is whether or not your plates will be too close together or too far apart concerning the applied voltage. You want them to be just farther apart than the breakdown voltage of the capacitor for maximum capacitance, but not so close together that it allows arcing, even if the dielectric is liquid and self-healing. Arcing is a waste of energy. The voltage needs to be stored in the dielectric (water). Once the field is established, the hydrogen atoms will line up the water molecule with the induced A field, do to their natural charge.


According to Stanley Meyer, higher frequency pulses or higher voltages should produce higher gas outputs (how he claimed to regulate the system for "on demand use" which changes gas volume needs over time). Such makes logical sense, as higher pulse frequency should yield more gas when each pulse produces gas, and higher voltage would stress the molecule more even at a given pulse rate. So long as the field is stronger than, say 10eV upon the molecule in the capacitors A field between the plates, the bonds should break.




My thoughts:


Truthfully, I think it would be better to use a multi-dielectric capacitance chamber, basically the plates on the outside of a water container rather than submerged in the liquid, but I don't know if this will work. It is one of the things I want to try myself. I love to experiment.