Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
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

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 514354
  • *Total Topics: 15304
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...  (Read 45246 times)

Offline demartin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2008, 03:23:00 AM »
Quote from: zerotensor
Here I have marked-up the schematic for single-wire transmission to include a water capacitor cell.The cell is situated in series with the transmission line.  The load can be part of the power supply for the transmitter!

That's an interesting idea because let's say you hooked up the WFC as indicated. The voltage on both sides of the cell would then be equal since that is the nature of a single-wire transmission line. Therefore no voltage difference exists across the water gap, and no electric field, and thus no electron current either. However, the voltage, despite being equal across the gap, still changes over time due to the whole thing being powered by a tesla coil. Therefore the water would be exposed to a gradient-free time-varying scalar potential as I wrote in the post above. Perhaps this alone will not split the water. That's why Avramenko in that article said there was only a cold plasma, and no gas-generation. But -- if on top of this field, you added a small DC field (say from a 12 Volt supply), then you would be exerting a polarizing stress onto the water molecule that is already being exposed to this exotic Avramenko energy. That is what occurs in the Meyer VIC circuit if you hook up the bifilar coil with both coils in phase.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline zerotensor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2008, 03:26:15 AM »
Quote
demartin said:
That's important. You could have a gradient-free scalar potential field that oscillates over time. What kind of work does this produce? Well, the Lorentz gauge shows that divergence of the vector potential is proportional to the time rate of change of scalar potential.

Yes.  The Lorentz gauge is the right choice in this situation, where the vector potential can not be ignored.  @FarrahDay is stuck thinking in terms of the Coulomb gauge, where the vector potential is usually swept under the rug because it is so difficult to calculate.

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2008, 12:54:28 PM »
OK guys, I'll admit to being a bit out of my depth here, but looking at the Avramenko Plug, it is my understanding that this is a method of extracting free electrons from the environment, so only a little current is needed to flow from our power source, thereby providing us with an effectively free energy.  However, electrons are involved and work would seem to be carried out as per usual. So I'm struggling to see its relevance when we don't want any electrons involved.

Maybe there is something in this scalar potential theory, but I can't help thinking that we are not seeing the wood for the trees, and might simply be looking too hard for something that is in fact far more simple and right under our noses. This kind of science was certainly beyond Meyer's understanding.

One thing is clear, if the water molecule is being pulled apart into hydrogen and oxygen atoms by a scalar potential (hence, there is no ionisation involved), then the gas would be given off throughout the liquid medium and not at the electrodes specifically. Moreover, it would also mean that the electrodes do not need to be in direct contact with the water (i.e, can be properly insulated from the water), nor do they need to be stainless steel.

All this I'm afraid goes against everything that we currently accept about the wfc, so is hard to swallow.

We only need ss electrodes in contact with the water because of ionisation, we only need ss electrodes because of the part they play in charge exchanges which produce the gas. If charges on the electrodes are not required, then neither are the ss electrodes. 

I for one am not prepared at this stage to bin all this and go scalar.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2008, 12:54:28 PM »
Sponsored links:




Spewing

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2008, 02:10:33 AM »
resonance breaks stuff, the water molecule does not have just 1 resonate frequency. it has a hydrogen and oxygen atom and who knows what else it has bonding it together. bob did good tuning into the 3.

we know if you play resonance to a glass it will shatter, when the resonance source hits the resonate destination it is amplified to infinity, "it breaks no matter what it is". with water its different, unlike glass it has multible resonance frequencies. harmonics is just the beginning of this understanding, far into the future after we're gone it is the brainiacs that will learn these resonate frequencies and Supur harmonics down to a T to shatter anything desirable.

to break glass you use sound waves, to break water you use static. whatever it may be, the frequencies must be in tune!

Offline demartin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2008, 06:20:35 AM »
Quote from: Farrah Day
One thing is clear, if the water molecule is being pulled apart into hydrogen and oxygen atoms by a scalar potential (hence, there is no ionisation involved), then the gas would be given off throughout the liquid medium and not at the electrodes specifically. Moreover, it would also mean that the electrodes do not need to be in direct contact with the water (i.e, can be properly insulated from the water), nor do they need to be stainless steel.

If the potential field (and here I mean the vector potential as it vibrates longitudinally) plays an important role in Meyer technology, then I think it works more as a "solvent" of the covalent bonding, weakening it. How? As the vector potential changes, so does the quantum phase of an electron, that much is known fact in physics (it's a variation of the Aharanov-Bohm effect). So the covalent electrons would be affected at their most fundamental level, which may change their relation to the hydrogen and oxygen nuclei enough to weaken then bonding. That last part is just my speculation.

Once loosened, you then also need an actual DC electric field to pull the water molecule apart. It would then pull apart easier than without the "solvent" action of the potential field. So the stainless steel tubes are still necessary and must be in contact with the water. The tubes would function as a longitudinal vector potential antenna on top of providing the DC field/current to tug on the water molecule.

If in the  Hutchison Effect, metal can turn to jelly when exposed to EM standing waves created by Van de Graaf generators and Tesla coils, then couldn't the water molecule likewise be "jellyfied" so that it becomes extremely easy to dissociate with a weak current? 


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2008, 06:20:35 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2008, 11:44:53 AM »
DM

I see where you're coming from, but only in the case of charge exchanges due to ionisation would the metal electrodes need to be in direct contact with the water.  If the electrodes were completely insulated with teflon, derlin or some other such insulating material and placed within the water, you would still be able to have a dc potential across the electrodes and still be able to pulse the voltage, but no ionisation can take place.

I'm not at all convinced by this, as it basically undermines everything about the construction of the wfc as we know it and totally dismisses ionisation.  Ionisation is an endothermic reaction which would cause the cell to run cooling barring any heavy current flow, which would seem to be in keeping with findings. I doubt very much that pulling the water molecule apart into its component atoms would be an endothermic reaction.

Purarich claimed that by applying a modulated ac signal to water that he could alter the bond angle between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms in order to effectively make the molecule more 'brittle'.  It then apparently took much less energy to break it down.  I believe that ionisation was still the process involved.

I may be very wrong, but I'm of a mind that ionisation still plays the main role, and the key is to initiate ionisation without the need for high current through the water and hence without the need of an electrolyte.  Many people don't understand the reactions of simple electrolysis (mainly because it is indeed nearly always over-simplified).

We add an electrolyte to water but it does not play any part in our final reaction, and remains inert in the solution - all it does is initiate ionisation of the water at the electrodes. Water does not ionise when you add the electrolyte, it only ionises at the electrodes once you pass a current through the water.  All we need to do is encourage the water to ionise using another method that is not current hungry. This I truly feel, is what it's all about.

Another thing was brought to mind. Until recently I'd thought that Meyer was using this technology to power his Dune Buggy, now I realise that he was using a very different system in which he had modified sparkplugs and more like a water injection system, which rather begs the question, 'Just how efficient was his original wfc?'

Offline dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2008, 04:37:40 PM »
Hi,

I would say that indeed ionisation of the water has to play a big part in the meyer wfc. The simple fact that he used electron extraction circuits to pull electrons from the cell shows us that electrons are seperated from the water molecules. Even the latest D14 shows how to extract electrons from the water and power a load. It even improves hydrogen production, which makes sense because the liberated H and O atoms can't reform to water because of the lack of electrons.....

As I see it the white coating on the tubes restricts the inflow of electrons from the pulsing circuit and restricts the reconstruction of water molecules before the gas can escape the wfc. Looking at it this way seems to explain WHY electron extraction improves gas production.

Robert

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2008, 04:37:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2008, 07:43:00 PM »
Sorry Dutch, I can't follow your line of reasoning here at all.

Firstly apart from being very suspicious of Meyer's so call 'electron extraction unit', we actually need those electrons for ionisation to produce gas. If you take away the covalent bonding electrons, that actually means we have to find extra electrons from somewhere in order to get the gas - it simply doesn't make sense!  The only reason we would not want the electron is if we are not initiating ionisation.

The O2 and H2 created by ionisation won't recombine to form water until you add energy (ie a spark), this is not, nor ever has been a problem.

I'm not aware of the D14 showing how to extract electrons from the water!?

Offline dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2008, 08:06:36 PM »
Sorry Dutch, I can't follow your line of reasoning here at all.

Firstly apart from being very suspicious of Meyer's so call 'electron extraction unit', we actually need those electrons for ionisation to produce gas. If you take away the covalent bonding electrons, that actually means we have to find extra electrons from somewhere in order to get the gas - it simply doesn't make sense!  The only reason we would not want the electron is if we are not initiating ionisation.

The O2 and H2 created by ionisation won't recombine to form water until you add energy (ie a spark), this is not, nor ever has been a problem.

I'm not aware of the D14 showing how to extract electrons from the water!?

Hi Farrah Day

Well if you're not aware of the electron extraction circuit in the D14 file (the september 2007 version!) I suggest you have a look at that. It is on the very last two pages. It states there:

The load was a 10 Watt light bulb which shines brightly, and interestingly, the current draw of the circuit goes down rather than up,in spite of the extra output power.


On the last page you will find the EEC used. So if we need the electrons as you say, how do you explain for the brighty shining light and undiminished gas production?

hope this helps.

regards

Robert

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2008, 08:06:36 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #39 on: February 03, 2008, 09:03:01 PM »
Hi Dutch

I think the Meyer term 'electron extraction unit' is the problem in that it is a Meyer made up name and, like many of his other 'invented' terms, rather misleading.

The Lawton cct is I believe thought to be extracting energy from the environment, not extracting electrons from the circuit as Meyer seems to be indicating, and so the environment is thought to be providing the extra energy to to power the load.  In this scenario electrons are not inhibited, its just that less are drawn from the psu.

Quote
So if we need the electrons as you say, how do you explain for the brighty shining light and undiminished gas production?

I don't say we need electrons to produce gas for ionisation... rather it is simply a fact that we do.  It is a Faraday Law. If you research the ionisation reaction and gas evolution you will see this.

I don't think that we are breaking any Faraday Laws and I do think it all comes down to initiating ionisation by a means other than high current.

Lawton seems to have done the best work and indeed appears to be the most informed on this process to date, but it's clear that even he doesn't (or didn't) have explanations for all the reactions involved. Makes you wonder how he has progressed since the D14 info was published.

We will probably not hear from him again until he has a business set around it!

Spewing

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2008, 06:18:35 AM »
Another thing was brought to mind. Until recently I'd thought that Meyer was using this technology to power his Dune Buggy, now I realise that he was using a very different system in which he had modified sparkplugs and more like a water injection system, which rather begs the question, 'Just how efficient was his original wfc?'


not very efficient, stanley was using something other than hydrogen, the hydrogen was just to trigger something... if you want to know what stanley was producing in his famous video, well it was about 1 pound every six seconds givin his 4 OD volume, i've produced more than stanley has with a alternator already, theres no way he ran his car on that alone!!!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2008, 06:18:35 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline AhuraMazda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2008, 09:47:06 AM »
@spewing

not very efficient, stanley was using something other than hydrogen, the hydrogen was just to trigger something... if you want to know what stanley was producing in his famous video, well it was about 1 pound every six seconds givin his 4 OD volume, i've produced more than stanley has with a alternator already, theres no way he ran his car on that alone!!!

1 pound of what?
and what is OD?



Offline Dr. Tesla

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2008, 05:00:19 AM »
A question. If the space between the SS plates reduces the voltage needed for a voltage spark (capacitor failure) then why not use PEM membrane and put the plates together, divided just by the membrane? After all, proponents of Meyer's technology insist the cell is a capacitor type/design. It would then make sense to actually build it as a capacitor, and what better dielectric than a PEM (or any other dielectric) material?

Even tracing paper would be good. Just extra waxed a bit to make sure it doesn't soak up any water, to prevent current passing across.

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2008, 05:52:40 PM »
Hi Doc,

I think you might be missing one vital point here. We're not making a capacitor for the sake of having a capacitor.

Where does the water we need to break down into its component gases come into play in your scenario?

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2008, 11:22:37 PM »
Hi Everyone,
It's been some time since I have last posted on this site due too mostly political and financial reasons. Most people are now aware of the North American Union, and Ron Paul. I have been very busy fighting for freedom writing Senators to ask them to vote no on S1959.

But anyway I have not given up on water for fuel technology. This is my latest design, and I have really put everything into this one so that it can be used with the systems found on this web site: http://www.omnitekcorp.com/altfuel.htm
Here they have systems for use already all that needs be done is put in the WFC as the source of hydrogen. If I get it right this time on to the mode of operability ;). This technology has to get out too humanity if we are to stop the wars for oil, and survive the upcoming depression. I am doing my part in keeping this iron hot so too speak. But I have really become very political in that I see America the great coming too and end if we do as Bush wants. Enemies to this type of work are the IMF, CFR, SPP, NAFTA, World Banks, and anyone that is in the business of selling power. Who killed Stanley Meyer? Who knows but the man didn't make it out of the parking lot, throwing up too death.

It has taken me a long time to figure out just a small part of his technology, but I belive I can get it up too the "Mode of Operability." With Dr. Dingle's work I have sort of mixed his and Meyer's technologies. He does do something very different and that is he uses vacuum to draw in the Oxy/Hydro mixture.  Plus he used a voltage multiplier in the place of Stanley's blocking diode, other than that they technologies appear to be the same.

I have spoken with a lot of people on this and we all agree on this, "The only way anyone is going too see this technology is for it too be given away." I view this technology as a penny saved is a penny earned. Best of luck too us all.

 

OneLink