Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hydrogen energy => Electrolysis of H20 and Hydrogen on demand generation => Topic started by: tao on August 08, 2007, 07:44:36 PM

Title: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: tao on August 08, 2007, 07:44:36 PM
Ok gentlemen, time for another awakening.

Water is a carrier of energy, surely we all know that. We also know that water has more energy in it than gasoline does. Yet, we assume that a device that can easily split water is akin to a 'OU' or 'Free' energy device, and it is to an extent. Yet, water still needs to be transported to the device and the water is still 'used up' so more needs to be added to the device.

I am making these statements because people often group Stanley Meyer type systems in the same light that solid state electric only OU devices are in, this shouldn't be done. This shouldn't be done, because water is a FUEL, like GASOLINE, and we are ADDING it to the system. The only thing that these water splitters are doing is efficiently splitting the water, which then lets us USE all it's contained energy.


Now lets meet Stanley Meyer and his METHOD for water splitting, and SEE why it has been so hard to replicate...

The whole 'secret' to Meyer's method was to use the 'water to be split' as a DIELECTRIC and to use the SS (stainless steel) plates that were in the water as CAPACITOR PLATES. He would then use ONE of his various methods to build up VERY HIGH VOLTAGE across the plates in the water which, at a certain point, would cause DIELECTRIC FAILURE. This means that all the voltage that had build up on the SS plates would reach a level higher than the voltage breakdown of the water and the dielectric would FAIL. This means that effectively, the voltage across the SS plates would ARC OVER to between the plates. For this to happen, there NEEDS to be a pathway for this ARC. This is what happens in the air when you get an electric shock. In the water though, when the ARC happens, this MEANS that the water molecules are SPLITTING, basically being RIPPED APART.

Hence, you are basically using VOLTAGE *ONLY* to SPLIT WATER by using the water as the DIELECTRIC of a capacitor and exceeding that water's voltage breakdown level! The GOOD THING is that VOLTAGE isn't POWER, and the LESS CURRENT that is used to REACH said VOLTAGES, the lower the POWER USED. So, very much unlike normal electrolysis where all use want is current flow, these methods of splitting water only really care about using VOLTAGE, which ISN"T POWER!

Lindemann went over a lot of this in his "The World of Free Energy" video...


Ok, now that we know HOW to split the water and how to do so WITHOUT POWER, lets see why it is so hard to duplicate Meyer's setups....


First off, when I say that you DON'T WANT CURRENT, I mean it! Having Current (electron flow) in and around SS plates completely DESTROYS THIS WHOLE WATER SPLITTING METHOD! In fact, this is one of the major reasons why people refute Meyer's setup, because they don't think it is possible!

Allow me to explain: The idea is that you build up a very high voltage on the SS plates and then the water splits when it's dielectric 'fails'. Simple enough right? No. If you just take a normal power supply, say that you took a 100V DC power supply and hooked it up to the SS plates. Well, long before those SS plates ever get a voltage of 100V across them, you are going to see current moving through the water. Why is this? This is because a normal power supply is ADDING/MOVING ELECTRONS TO THE SS PLATES, which are in the water, and this is making it VERY easy for the WATER to CONDUCT and for the electrons to FLOW from one plate to another. So, this means that using normal power supplies, it would be almost impossible to EVER GET A HIGH VOLTAGE ACROSS THE SS PLATES, and HENCE impossible to rip apart the water via a dielectric failure method.

This is where Stan's work comes in though. He realized that the status quo power supply just couldn't handle it, so he build ever more complex devices and methods for generating VOLTAGE WITHOUT CURRENT, ala Tesla! This is the KEY to being able to SPLIT WATER WITH ONLY VOLTAGE, PERIOD.

The problems with trying to replicate Meyer's systems come from the complex nature of his various methods to get to this NO CURRENT and ONLY VOLTAGE situation. Meyer used pulsed DC, collapsed magnetic fields, bifilar coils, diodes, with charging chokes, magnetic fields to strip away some of the electron flow, PRACTICALLY ANYTHING he COULD USE to try to get to a situation with NO CURRENT and HIGH VOLTAGE. It was harder for him then it sounds. You might think to yourself, why not just use the capacitor like a parallel RESONANT circuit and apply AC to the system to cause the voltage to move toward infinity while the current goes down to nothing? Well, the PROBLEM with doing that is that, water is complex and expecially in a water wplitting type of device, the capacitance of our water capacitor (the water as dielectric and the SS plates) would constantly be shifting, and as this is shifting, we wouldn't be able to constantly maintain near perfect resonance and the  voltage would lower and current would be introduced which would RUIN THE WATER SPLITTING PROCESS.

It is all very complex, and it was even complex for Stanley Meyer. He originally thought it was going to take him only some months time to get everything working well, when in fact it took so many years. This is all understandable.


Now, enter Dr. Avramenko...

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/avramenko/avrasch.gif)

He figured out how to send ENERGY down a single wire, and at the END of that wire where he places his 'Avramenko's Plug' (which is two diodes connected in opposite to that single transmission wire), VOLTAGE WILL APPEAR at the ends of the two diodes! SO, there is NO CURRENT AT ALL IN THE SINGLE WIRE, YET VOLTAGE WILL MANIFEST ITSELF AT THE ENDS OF THE DIODES!

Here are some excerpts from ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS done by Frolov and Naudin:

From Alexander Frolov's experiments detailed in frolov1.asc
"I used for this scheme a 30 VAC hand-made generator (variable oscillator) to
supply the input for L1, at a frequency of 10 KHz.  The transformer was rated
at 30/3000 Volts and the diodes rated at 1.5 KV.  The ammeter can be used as
load R. Note that an ammeter placed between the transformer and point A does
not show any current drain.

                           CONCLUSIONS
These circuits have experimentally proved the possibility of producing power
in a load by means of POTENTIAL ONLY!"

Point A that he refers to is the single wire, so here we see confirmation that there is NO CURRENT flowing in the single wire, hence no electron flow. This confirms Avramenko's findings. JL Naudin has found the same things as Frolov to confirm Avramenko's findings.


The MOST important thing to realize about Avramenko's setup is that there is NO CURRENT FLOW AT ALL, and yet the voltage GETS TO AND BUILDS UP IN THE A CAPACITOR THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE TWO DIODES!


Have you pictured it yet?


We can now do what Meyer only dreamed of, that is to use ONLY VOLTAGE, WITHOUT CURRENT FLOW, to APPLY VOLTAGE to the SS PLATES in the water thereby using the water as a dielectric. Since there is NO CURRENT FLOW, there is no ADDING/MOVING electrons GOING INTO and ONTO the SS PLATES, which MEANS we can BUILD UP a VERY HIGH VOLTAGE across the SS Plates without having to worry about electrons prematurely conducting through the water!

So, a completlely viable solution to solving the crisis of trying to duplicate Meyer's 'hard to duplicate' setups is to merely use an Avramenko single wire setup , and use the SS plates from Meyer's setup as the capacitor that is connected to the two diodes in Avramenko's setup. This means we don't have to worry about electron flow at all, since we are using a single wire! There are no 'grounds' that we need to worry about, there is no need for any of the convoluted setups that Meyer was using!


In addition to making a setup like Frolov, Avramenko, or Naudin, you can make a setup like Milan Manchich did. He used a flat Tesla pancake coil, and applied a HF voltage to the inner or outer wire of the pancake coil, and on the opposite wire of the pancake coil, he placed an 'Avramenko's Plug', and he found the same effects as the other three gentlemen! So, there are MANY ways to use Avramenko's ONE WIRE and PLUG (two diode) setups to reach the effects that we are after, NO CURRENT, ONLY VOLTAGE!


More later, kind of tired at the moment, lol.



Sources/Sites:
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/frolov1.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/avramenko/avramenk.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/afep01.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/afep012.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/milan.htm

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Unicron on August 08, 2007, 08:05:30 PM
.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: ZeroFossilFuel on August 08, 2007, 08:53:48 PM
Not sure I agree completely about zero current flow. Avramenko's single wire generator sends AC down a single wire. The two free ends of the diode capacitor junctions act as the 2nd half of an antenna dipole, enhanced by immersion in water. Voltage is rectified creating a 2nd current path through the diodes and spark gap. Potential across a spark gap will induce a current when the dielectric breaks down. Conductivity of the water is still going to bleed off the charge attempting to build up in the capacitor.

I think one would still be on the right track to walk the parallel resonant path, however to make it self tuning via microprocessor to maintain the optimum frequency for shifting cell conditions.

Another factor in the PWM frequency equation that I think many ignore is rise and fall time of the square wave (attack and decay frequency). This is where I think Meyer's series inductors played a significant role. It's not enough to consider the fundamental frequency alone. It may not even the major contributing factor. Control or addition of harmonics should not be ignored.

ZFF
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: tao on August 08, 2007, 09:12:05 PM
Not sure I agree completely about zero current flow. Avramenko's single wire generator sends AC down a single wire. The two free ends of the diode capacitor junctions act as the 2nd half of an antenna dipole, enhanced by immersion in water. Voltage is rectified creating a 2nd current path through the diodes and spark gap. Potential across a spark gap will induce a current when the dielectric breaks down. Conductivity of the water is still going to bleed off the charge attempting to build up in the capacitor.

I think one would still be on the right track to walk the parallel resonant path, however to make it self tuning via microprocessor to maintain the optimum frequency for shifting cell conditions.

Another factor in the PWM frequency equation that I think many ignore is rise and fall time of the square wave (attack and decay frequency). This is where I think Meyer's series inductors played a significant role. It's not enough to consider the fundamental frequency alone. It may not even the major contributing factor. Control or addition of harmonics should not be ignored.

ZFF


There might be some current flow, but I doubt it.

"Some tests has been done successfuly in Moscow (Electrotechnical Institute) with a
1kW power generator through a single-wire transmission line with only a 10 microns
tungsten wire. No significant losses has been recorded on the wattmeters."

He has even been able to send energy through all sorts of conductors like tungsten, the earth, etc, and even was able to send energy via NONCONDUCTORS.

There is an effect akin to Tesla here, and IMPULSES.

I do agree with what you are saying about the conductivity of the water and the altering of frequencies, but that would be much easier to handle (if we have to handle it at all) by using an Avramenko or Milan setup, because we are merely adjusting one variable, one input frequency. Whereas, in Meyer's setups, you have dealing with trying to stop current flow, adjusting the charging chokes, and adjusting the input frequencies to match the status of the water...

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: tinu on August 08, 2007, 09:34:47 PM
Hi Tao,

It?s an honor for me, really, to partially reply to one of your posts.

I?d like to address the Avramenko?s plug.
I have begun experimenting with it starting from 8-9 months ago. I really did not know at that time that the setup has a name and that it was actually extensively researched/studied as I stumbled upon it by pure coincidence. (I don?t think my personal experience is relevant but I can give details, if needed.)

Anyway, I found that although no real current is flowing through the one wire setup, power through that wire is still flowing. In all, the power from the power source is partially transferred to the load connected after the Avramenko?s plug, despite the fact that one can not measure a real current in-between. In my understanding, there is a longitudinal oscillation occurring in the single wire (between the electrons along the wire) and that oscillation is carrying real power. (There are limitations, also; such an oscillation is less effective than the usual two-wire setup/transversal oscillations).

I felt to post about it because the set-up for verifying the above is not very complex and facts can be relatively easy verified. I can provide info for other experimenters, if interested.
I also felt to post because, although energy is transferred, it is not free, as some wrongly assumes. Based on a dc ? ac (kHz) ? one wire ? Avramenko?s plug - dc setup, I was able to verify the down to a very good precision the dc power-in and the dc power-out. They match.

Many thanks for your attention,

Tinu
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: tao on August 08, 2007, 09:46:25 PM
Hi Tao,

It?s an honor for me, really, to partially reply to one of your posts.

I?d like to address the Avramenko?s plug.
I have begun experimenting with it starting from 8-9 months ago. I really did not know at that time that the setup has a name and that it was actually extensively researched/studied as I stumbled upon it by pure coincidence. (I don?t think my personal experience is relevant but I can give details, if needed.)

Anyway, I found that although no real current is flowing through the one wire setup, power through that wire is still flowing. In all, the power from the power source is partially transferred to the load connected after the Avramenko?s plug, despite the fact that one can not measure a real current in-between. In my understanding, there is a longitudinal oscillation occurring in the single wire (between the electrons along the wire) and that oscillation is carrying real power. (There are limitations, also; such an oscillation is less effective than the usual two-wire setup/transversal oscillations).

I felt to post about it because the set-up for verifying the above is not very complex and facts can be relatively easy verified. I can provide info for other experimenters, if interested.
I also felt to post because, although energy is transferred, it is not free, as some wrongly assumes. Based on a dc ? ac (kHz) ? one wire ? Avramenko?s plug - dc setup, I was able to verify the down to a very good precision the dc power-in and the dc power-out. They match.

Many thanks for your attention,

Tinu



I thank you for your response Tinu.

You bring up a key issue, and the reason for my slight introduction to my intro post in this thread!

You said this: "I also felt to post because, although energy is transferred, it is not free, as some wrongly assumes."

I totally agree with you, the energy isn't free at all, we are only getting on the output what we put into the input, about 100% efficiency.

The KEY here is this: We are USING the Avramenko type setups to ENGINEER a HIGH VOLTAGE with practically NO CURRENT, and we are then applying THIS ENGINEERED OUTPUT to WATER, in order to SPLIT that water. WATER is our FUEL, which must be ADDED to our setups continually as we USE THE ENERGY FROM THE WATER... In this instance, water is no different than GASOLINE, BUT to US, water is easy to get to and to US it is almost FREE, so we might think its all free energy, but it isn't!

So, We would be using an Avramenko type setup, KNOWING that there is NO FREE ENERGY involved with it, but KNOWING that an Avramenko type setup can ENGINEER the right types of High Voltage and Low-to-no current that we need to SPLIT the water so that we can use the WATER's energy content for use in our generators!

So, no breaking of any laws, nothing really obscure happening here, just precisely engineered inputs to the SS plates, so that we can GET TO the water's energy source! Just like plants already do!

Thanks for your post.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Super God on August 08, 2007, 10:09:33 PM
This is good news, now I can use all those parts I bought for the lawton pulser for something else, like a tpu pulser or something.  What value would the capacitor in the circuit be related to?  Does it depend on how far away the condenser plates are from one another?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Nastrand2000 on August 09, 2007, 04:13:01 AM
So...If I am to understand this....the closer the SS plates are together, then a lower voltage can be used( 100 to 1000)...using the water as a dielectric. Dielectric breakdown is measured between the oppositely charged plates and their medium. I am interested because I have a motor that runs on 16 milliwatts (0.008 amps @ 2 volts) and produces 160 volt spikes. This has been measured with an oscilloscope, and the motor runs at about 60 rpm at this setting.  However, if this voltage could be used to generate h2, then I would like to further this experiment.   
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Super God on August 09, 2007, 11:26:40 PM
I've got an idea to re-vamp the lawton solid state circuit to use the MOSFET and ONE 555 timer to drive the plug.  I have little ceramic capacitors that I could run in series or parallel, dunno which yet.  But essentially I'm cutting the circuit in half and using a plug to interface with the gaps, maybe a plug for each one!  What would you recommend for a capacitor value?  Obviously a very high voltage.  Low capacitance, high capacitance?  I dunno.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Super God on August 11, 2007, 03:57:32 AM
Ooo another question popped into my mind.  Do we use a SINGLE plug for EVERY two plates (pos and neg in a normal setup) or do we use a plug for every two plates?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: rMuD on August 11, 2007, 06:47:49 PM
Sandia National Labs Water-Dielectric Breakdown Data

here is some math that could help  http://www.waterfuelconverters.com/SandiaNationalLabsData.html (http://www.waterfuelconverters.com/SandiaNationalLabsData.html)

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: TheCell on August 12, 2007, 12:51:47 PM
@tao
There must be a second wire in order to get amp flow.
Without this nothing would happen.

The current in Meyers circuit is an alternating current , with a dc offset, so through the whole cycle the current will flow only in one direction, alternating between a minimum and a maximum level.

If there are only inductive and capacitive components , the energy flow will switch between the source and the target.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: demartin on February 01, 2008, 09:44:35 AM
Good thread, I realize after a process of elimination that this is the key.

Here is a good article about Avramenko's Plug with technical details and equations:

    http://www.cazv.cz/2003/2002/tech1_02/Strebkov.pdf

From the article:

"SWEPS [single-wire electric power system] has no resistance losses for following tested conductor materials of the line: copper, aluminum, steel, tungsten, carbon, water, damp soil."

You see why Meyer used 11.6 kOhm steel wire coils?

Also, for those who missed it being pointed out elsewhere, the alternator circuit in D14.pdf has the cells hooked up semi-Avramenko style. If the cells were connected to only one of three alternator windings, it would be total-Avramenko setup. The other circuits in that PDF don't have the Avramenko advantage, as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Haliburton on February 01, 2008, 10:28:07 AM
TAO ,  I am not the smartest person in the forum but i do disagree with you when you say that HHO is not overunity.  I mean i guess its just what your definition of overunity is really.  It does not really matter what you build or how you build it because no matter what, everything in the end will run out of what is powering it.  Magnet motors will only last four several hundred years for example.  Pretty much anything in the universe will run out of power sooner or later, even if its for a day or 10 billion years.  Over 70 percent of the earth is covered in water.  1 litter of water has over 1,000 litters of usable fuel,  if thats not overunity i dont know what is :P   
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: zerotensor on February 01, 2008, 11:37:02 AM
Quote
Here is a good article about Avramenko's Plug with technical details and equations:
 http://www.cazv.cz/2003/2002/tech1_02/Strebkov.pdf

Here's an excerpt from the article which seems to be relevant:

{quote}
If a water layer is included as part of the loaded single-wire line and a spark-gap is created between the conductor and the surface of water, the cold plasma discharge between conductor and water is initiated. This cold plasma discharge does not change the temperature of water and does not evaporate water during 30 minutes of operation of line.
{/quote}

So it occurs to me that if this "cold plasma" type discharge is what we are after, then placing the water capacitor in series with the single-wire transmission line would be a strategy to pursue.  What I mean is, the water capacitor could be made to function as part of the transmission line, in between the transmitter and the tuned receiver.  Excess energy accumulated at the receiving end could be recycled and used to power the transmitter.  Hopefully, the "cold discharge" is capable of producing some gas!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: AhuraMazda on February 01, 2008, 12:17:56 PM
@tao,
Excellent post. I must admit this has also been on my mind for a while.
I had always been wondering why did Meyer need an alternator to run his cells?
For the un-initiated, look at this link and working it out:
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcwav04.gif.
To me, this means he had around 110 v (near)DC at high current available to his
circuit. Then using DC resonant charging circuit Tesla coil technology, he
would bump the voltage up and pulse the water cell.
I believe the diode that confuses every one was simply there to stop the cell
capacitor from discharging.

There are 2 other unknowns:
1- the voltage,
2- the frequency and pulse characteristics.

Use of Avramenko plug is a good idea. Meyer could not switch off the high voltage pulses
applied to his cells fast enough ( before the ion avalanche) and that is why he was talking
about "amp limiting".



There must be a second wire in order to get amp flow.
Without this nothing would happen.

The current in Meyers circuit is an alternating current , with a dc offset, so through the whole cycle the current will flow only in one direction, alternating between a minimum and a maximum level.

If there are only inductive and capacitive components , the energy flow will switch between the source and the target.

There is no need for amp flow but, there is need for lining up the water molecules in the
right direction therefore biasing is necessary.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: zerotensor on February 01, 2008, 12:28:04 PM
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!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Spewing on February 01, 2008, 12:37:39 PM
OMG supurb with the electronics! Thank you much for bringing this circuit to my attention!

so whats taking everyone so long to confirm??? any gas yet???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: zerotensor on February 01, 2008, 12:52:31 PM
How this might work:  (pure conjecture, at this point--so be gentle!)
Standing waves of potential are created along the transmission line.  The trick would be to match the wavelength of the standing waves within the water to the plate separation distance. This could be done by tuning the frequency, the load, or both.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Spewing on February 01, 2008, 01:37:14 PM
doh, i think i got the wrong diode
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: zerotensor on February 01, 2008, 01:42:12 PM
Considering that the water itself forms part of the (HV, current free) transmission line, here's how one might bias the cap:
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Farrah Day on February 01, 2008, 02:05:04 PM
Blimey DM, you've been digging around to find this thread!

Not sure Tao is still around, but it would be nice to hear his comments again.

Ok, the Av Plug uses no power as no current is drawn.  Power = V x I, and we have no I... so no power, only potential energy.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I have got one of my problems again.

As the voltage on the capacitor plates is a direct result of charge build up on those plates, how can we have a voltage there unless charges (current) has flowed there in the first place?  If there are no +ve and -ve charges on the capacitor plates, then there is no potential difference across those plates - no voltage!

I've yet to read through the Avramenko Plug link, but I'm immediately suspicious of this concept in terms of the wfc.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: AhuraMazda on February 01, 2008, 02:51:28 PM
@farrah day,
For a moment forget electronics. Lets call this water in between the stainless steel tubes a water sandwich!
Conjecture: We don't care about capacitors/capacitance. All we want to do is to subject the water filling to ( pure) voltage.
We should not care whether current flows or not . Lets look at this this way, you can open a door using a crowbar ( electrolysis ) or use the door handle ( dielectric manipulation ).

If any one has experience of  the so called Avramenko plugs, can they be cascaded to obtain huge voltage potentials? I have tried and had no success.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: dutchy1966 on February 01, 2008, 03:01:38 PM
Hi,

This starts to look like the Stiffler circuits here.....a WFC instead of a string of leds......Might be able to get some good ideas over from that thread.....

regards

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Farrah Day on February 01, 2008, 04:05:04 PM
Sorry AM, can't simply just dismiss a few of the technicalities here.

Look, I'm all for new ideas and theories, but something is wrong with this.

Pure voltage?

Yes, you can have voltage without current, ie a battery, but you can't have a voltage across a capacitor without charges on the plates - it's the charges on the plates that create the voltage!

Voltage is a difference in potential created by charges. To have a potential across the plates of a capacitor means that the charges on each have to be different, mis-matched.

Subjecting the water 'sandwich' to high voltage without current flowing is the whole problem, because that voltage is created by a high charge build up on the plates - granted if those charges were not there then no current could flow, but then there would be no voltage there either!

I think there is much misunderstanding here.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: starcruiser on February 01, 2008, 05:12:39 PM
I would think the capacitor in the AV plug diagram should be the WFC. The number of AV plugs could be one or more depending on the number of cells in the WFC. I would start with one AV plug and run the cells in parallel to start and then try a series config just to see what happens.

The spark gap is symbolic of the gap between the plates in the WFC. The electron drain (additional SS rod??) from the WFC would be the recycler of the potential back into the circuit or receiver. Wouldn't you think? maybe a SS container with the cells isolated from the container?

run the electron drain thru a load and back to the HV transformer as shown in one of the circuit diagrams (if I recall correctly).

Just some thoughts, I am arm chair quarter backing for now, not enough time to try this myself.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: zerotensor on February 02, 2008, 01:02:51 AM

Yes, you can have voltage without current, ie a battery, but you can't have a voltage across a capacitor without charges on the plates - it's the charges on the plates that create the voltage!

Voltage is a difference in potential created by charges. To have a potential across the plates of a capacitor means that the charges on each have to be different, mis-matched

Voltage is not the right term to use in this situation.  What I think is being suggested here is that we are really talking about the potential, which is related to voltage, but not exactly the same thing.  "Voltage", as you use the term, really only applies in electrostatics.  In the potential formulation of relativistic electrodynamics, the scalar potential and the vector potential are unified in a single 4-vector potential.  A scalar potential can manifest in a region of space as a result of the coupling of vector potential fields produced at a distance, without piling up any charge there.  Such a potential has the same capacity to do work as one which is built out of a quasi-static arrangement of charges.

So, FD, what you say is true in electrostatics, but we are dealing with electrodynamic phenomena here.  The single-wire transmission line is a conduit for compression waves in the 4-potential.  Can such waves induce a scalar potential difference at a distance without piling up a bunch of charge there?  I think the answer is a definite yes.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: readyakira on February 02, 2008, 01:44:28 AM
Interesting in seeing how this one plays out.  I think you will still have some figures to play with when dealing with the wfc's changing properties as it is being used, but a very very interesting concept anyways.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: AhuraMazda on February 02, 2008, 02:46:38 AM
@zerotensor,
Quite so. Voltage was a wrong label for what I was trying to describe.
I was stuck for words to reply to FD. Thanks for your detailed response.

@readyakira

Yes. I believe we are going into unchartered waters.

AM
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: demartin on February 02, 2008, 02:56:03 AM
Quote from: zerotensor
In the potential formulation of relativistic electrodynamics, the scalar potential and the vector potential are unified in a single 4-vector potential.  A scalar potential can manifest in a region of space as a result of the coupling of vector potential fields produced at a distance, without piling up any charge there.  Such a potential has the same capacity to do work as one which is built out of a quasi-static arrangement of charges.

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. Further, divergence of the vector potential is also proportional to charge density. Therefore if you have an oscillating voltage field, gradient-free, you would have oscillating charge density. This means the water molecule, being a dipole, would shrink and expand when exposed to such a field. The field would shrink and expand the electron shells too, perhaps switching off that covalent bonding electron pair and allowing the DC field maintained by the blocking diode to easily pull apart the water molecule.

[For those of you unfamiliar with those terms, scalar potential is basically the 'voltage' field from which an electric field arises when there is a gradient in it, while vector potential, aka "A-vec", is the 'flux' field from which magnetism arises when there is circulation in it].
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: demartin 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: zerotensor 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Farrah Day 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Spewing 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!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: demartin 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? 

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Farrah Day 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?'
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Farrah Day 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!?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Farrah Day 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!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Spewing 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!!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: AhuraMazda 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?


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Dr. Tesla 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Farrah Day 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?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: h20power 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: HeairBear on February 20, 2008, 01:46:11 AM
Nice work H2Opower! I have been wandering as of late what you have been up too. Keep up the good fight and I hope to see you around more.

HairBear
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: h20power on February 20, 2008, 02:16:39 AM
Hi HeairBear, Yeah I have been very busy, with college and the fight to remain free in this country. I am all over You Tube, here is one of my messages I post on there:
{If you want too know just what too do to save the people read this. Dr. Daniel Dingle of the Philippines needs to be persuaded to give his technology away for the good of humanity. Think about it this way, if you have no energy bills of anykind what would your life be like? That is just what his technology does, for rain, the last time I checked, is free, and it can run on rain water. This is what we all need too be doing, getting his technology out for humanity. This is how to beat them!}

This technology will put a stop to their plans in a big way. No more energy bills is such a sweet sounding phraise. It gives power back to the people, and ends our dependance on oil, and the power grid. I was just talking too someone that was a true nonbeliver in this type of technology, but now he is all into it, trying to get Stanley Meyer work up and going. Voltage electrolysis is now what this is being called, since it is the voltage doing the work and not the current. He wants too get rich off of the technology though. I told him that's a real bad move for if one shows any signs of greed you will be apart of their fully controled system, and they will own you, and/or do away with you. They will kill untold thousands that get in their way, so one man is just like killing an ant too them.  I stay off of the sites most of the time for what they did to Ravi. Humanity needs this technology very badly, some are beeing starved to death, others are being in a way slaved out too the rich. If this technology makes it out too the masses life on the planet as a whole will be better, if I get it working all I want is a Nobel Peace Prize. 
Take care an I will try to post more now. But I think Senate Bill S1959 goes too the floor to be voted on today. If this bill becomes law freedom of speech will be lost, and all forms of dissent will be curbed. Write, call, and/or email your Senator to vote no on this. If it becomes law I will be conciderd a terrorist, as well as most of us here. Put it this way if this bill had be law in the 60's the civil rights movement would have been stopped in it tracks, and Martine L. King braned a terrorist.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on February 20, 2008, 03:07:30 AM

Just today the kettle boiled over on the propane stove...oddly enough the overflow caused the flame to increase.

It would appear the heated water releases a measure of the hydrogen.

I wonder if a 12v cavitron was used to produce steam, would it then be easier for a pulsed charge to then produce hydrogen...or has it already been tried before ?

Regards...   
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: HeairBear on February 20, 2008, 06:13:14 AM
Are you talking about an ultrasonic dental tool when you say cavitron?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on February 20, 2008, 10:58:49 PM

Sorry, what I had in mind was a scaled down version of the type of caviton shown in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0M2GnQluJk&feature=related

Regards...

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: topsykrett on April 19, 2008, 12:36:15 AM
i have tried to make hho out of steam the rubbers in the tube burn up with the voltage then i put in porceline which worked i put steam thru the tube assembly and ohms test it was 80 ohms their is no significant advantage out of this cause the temperature slows down the electrolysis process
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on April 19, 2008, 02:38:54 AM

I wonder if would it make any difference if the steam were pulsed in arrangement with pulsed current.

Regards...

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Feynman on April 19, 2008, 03:01:02 AM
I think Stanley Meyer is definitely using pulsed waves... check out the wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_fuel_cell_circuit.png

My calculation show that if the square wave carrier at 42khz, the modulation wave is (2/5)*42 or approx 16.8khz.  This complex wave might even survive a trip through an ignition coil...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: topsykrett on April 19, 2008, 03:54:16 AM
i dont think pulsing the steam will make any difference when it turns to steam it is then distilled water which is way harder to get gas out of so i think it is going the wrong way with it  the pond fogger hooked to a cell tube would probably be better but i dont know if it seperates from the minerals making it into distilled water  i think it is not worth looking into unless you can get the steam 800 plus degrees like the high temp cells they are making for reactors those cell are the most effiecint of all it is called pyrolysis
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on April 19, 2008, 04:57:40 AM

What about pulsed steam from a scaled water cavitron...they can effortlessly produce hot water or steam depending on the angle and depth of the holes in the rotor.

I believe I posted something similar, possibly in this thread.

There seems to a lot of pulsing and spinning going on in the universe...who knows merging both energies may lead to something.

Regards...

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: topsykrett on April 19, 2008, 01:20:28 PM
you could try it if you want but im pretty sure its not gonna do much for you distilled water takes so much power to get the gas out that its not worth it and the rubbers keep burning then you have to put in ceramics and you dont get anything out of it. i hit a single tube with a 1.5 mm gap using a brute force and got just about nothing out of it .i think the only reson they get anything out of the ones in reactors is they use catalyst plates to trigger a reaction . i am familiar with a cavitation heater  but dont know how hot the steam gets
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: h20power on April 19, 2008, 11:36:51 PM
That is the whole problem you are trying bute force insted of using you brain. Sorry how the came out, but it's the truth. The way Stanley Meyer did it was to use the coils back EMF to break the water down. The transformer that he had is like none on the open market, but some micro waves do use something close. All coil must resonate at the same frequency, the use of different size wire allows for a small step up, say 3:1, but it is the bobbin cavitties that are bumping up the voltage the most. When the magnetic field is cut off all of the Xc's of the bobbin spaces act like a voltage multipliers. Now in pulsing transformers this is normally not a desired effect, but in the way Stanley Meyer used a trasformer it is. The wire sizes I am going too be using to get the job done the right way this time is as follows; .560mm primary, .160mm secondary, and .140mm chokes, all are bifilar wire. I too will be aiming for 42.8k Hz resonance since Dr. John Keely made water seperate at 42.7122k Hz.

The first pic is the way the transformer will look for the most part.
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb249/h20power/?action=view&current=vicforinjectorwithcolor.jpg
also note this is like a showing of all of my work from the begining see the progress I have had and ideas that I came up with.
But note the cone shaped wfc's will work best, I will try it once I get the money to have it machined. It has too do with the properties of capacitance, the smaller the area the smaller the voltage but the greater the magnetic field strength.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on April 20, 2008, 12:51:50 AM

Thanks for taking the time h20...No umbrage taken.

I just try to soak up as much as I can from people like yourself, so any little tidbits are always welcomed from my end...we are all ignorant, but of different things :)

It will be interesting to see what comes from that schematic...excellent looking work btw.

Regards...

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: HeairBear on April 20, 2008, 12:54:07 AM
If you can get a "Cavitation Water Heater" to work in unity, you wouldn't need to build a Stanley Meyer type device. The steam itself will provide the energy. You could use the steam to run a Stirling engine perhaps. The possibilities are limitless. I wonder if cavitation would work with Freon?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: h20power on April 20, 2008, 02:54:58 AM
I am now looking into Dr. Daniel Dingel's work to see if I can get this thing done and see an end too the age of oil. His circuit is so much easyer and more effeicent. Still looking up all the stuff, but for now I have went too his delivery system to intorduce hho too the engine, for it is far simpler and acts as a self-regulator in a lot of ways. Both the two Meyer and Dingel are using the same type of Tesla system for the most part so, with luck I will crack this baby soon. :D

I have been learning all I can from every aspect of water. Dr. John Keely's work is very interesting and what an amazing man is all I can say about him.

Green light waves seem to interact with magnetizim that I got from Albert Instine, and is more than likely why Stanley Meyer used it.

I am just like you trying my damedest to kick the petrol habit, and stop all these wars for oil. Looking into Dr. Daniel Dingel's work has gave me some great insight into how all of this works. For it is a dual Tesla resonat tank circuit and the blocking diode is really called a De Q-ing diode too learn more go to these two pages and learn all you can, together we can beat them ;)
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcresist.html
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html
Best make a hard copy of them just incase the man takes them down.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on April 20, 2008, 03:07:40 AM

"have been learning all I can from every aspect of water."


In that case you would be remiss if you didn't do a google search on Victor Schauberger...he was/is the man in water research.

Regards...


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: HeairBear on April 30, 2008, 06:31:46 PM
I bought one of Dr. Stiffler's boards with the AV plug. Very interesting! Stiffler has a video out doing electrolysis with this very board. It was strange seeing almost no current and almost no oxygen bubbles. Does the AV plug require two diodes? Can it still work with just one? Hmmmm.... more tests...


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: forest on May 29, 2008, 11:40:54 AM
How this might work:  (pure conjecture, at this point--so be gentle!)
Standing waves of potential are created along the transmission line.  The trick would be to match the wavelength of the standing waves within the water to the plate separation distance. This could be done by tuning the frequency, the load, or both.


Because of your excellent tip my friend, I decided to post my opinion... I didn't tested all this stuff but..

If you analyze Avramenko plug you will probably find that it produces current, effect generated inside semiconductors by a electromagnetic impulse like in case of atomic bomb. CURRENT in produced inside semiconductor, that's how in my opinion Av plug works (unfortunately).

A confirmation will be soon discovered I hope.I saw that Dr Stiffler circuit damaged neon is special way which proof that theory. Current is made "in place" - between two diodes in AV plug.

The proper way to obtain radiant electricity is to match longitudinal waves flowing inside single wire with capacitance of the output load...

THERE IS NO NEED TO USE WATER CAPACITOR OR TWO PLATES!

just use one plate of big surface, match frequency of standing waves (longitudinal displacement current) that way so plate will have a one polarity potential always. If you obtain some potential levels like Meyer described (a few levels which differes in gas production) you will see it probably.

The second problem is  how to rise the potential of this longitudinal wave while flowing over single wire ? Tesla found solution : magnifying transformer, pancake coils !

Now I let you think about it . You can find additional tips in Tesla lectures and looking at Daniel Dingel reactor assembly...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: powercat on May 29, 2008, 12:40:12 PM
Did you see the new vid by Gotoluc on the Dr Stiffler thread

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5y2dzXdGho (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5y2dzXdGho)

pc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: forest on May 29, 2008, 12:47:40 PM
Yes,maybe I'm wrong about AV plug but the only way is to try to obtain kV in cell and compare output with meyer estimations.

Did you tried to measure current with ANALOG ampmeter while cell is generating gas ?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: powercat on May 29, 2008, 02:18:20 PM
Hi Forest
I don't have a SEC Exciter
you need to post your Question to Gotoulc
here
  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3457.msg100604;topicseen#msg100604 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3457.msg100604;topicseen#msg100604)
very good work going on with the SEC Exciter


pc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: h20power on May 29, 2008, 05:19:51 PM
"have been learning all I can from every aspect of water."


In that case you would be remiss if you didn't do a google search on Victor Schauberger...he was/is the man in water research.

Regards...




Thanks, after reading Victor Schauberger's work I have made some changes to the wfc design, for I feel the shape of the resonance cavity plays an important role in all of this. Meyer's own graph data suggest this also, for the cone shape has the way more hho gas output comepaired to the rest with the same power imput. I will either use a hyperbolic shape or egg shape resonance cavity now. Again many thanks for that :D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on May 29, 2008, 09:10:34 PM

Glad to help h2op...shapes of structures in nature contain clues also...it just takes the right person to put the pieces together.

There are many fertile minds here...I have a feeling one of us will strike on something.

Regards...

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: h20power on May 29, 2008, 11:33:31 PM
From what I gather on the these shapes and it's conection with water is this; Water is ever changing much as if it was alive. These two shapes are doing the same thing, ever changing if you move up and down them no one spot is ever the same. Now put that as a capacitor and bam and ever changing capacitor that will keep up with waters natural abilities.

Anyway that is just my thoughts on this, But the lessons learned from Victor Schauberger are priceless for he has shown us how to live with nature and keep the balance of everything at the same time. Too bad most of his teaching went to the corperations with only profit in mind at any cost.

Again many thanks
br,
h2opower.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: HeairBear on May 30, 2008, 01:13:42 AM
Stan's drawings edited  to use the Avramenko plug. The AV plug answers Stan's question,
"How do you restrict amps in a dead short condition?" I think it might just work...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5y2dzXdGho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pJEz0YGlQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8418/meyeravramenkoalternatocp6.jpg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3694/meyeravramenkovicsk1.jpg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1363/singlevb7.gif)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: sebosfato on August 23, 2009, 10:39:53 PM
Hello guys i would like to invite you to my thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html

Here i released the basic information about the way meyer did to achieve 1000x efficiency electrolysis.

I ask for donations so if you can please donate it will help a lot. I decided to come here and advert you about it. 

Answer he didn't used high voltage between the plates. He talked about this to confuse people.
40kv at 1ma = to 40 watts right ?
How about 4000 amps at 0,01volts
would not it be = to 40w?

The key is how to pass this huge current thru water at this very low voltage. You would need very high surface on the plates and...

Info about this here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Please donate
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: CrazyEwok on August 25, 2009, 07:59:35 AM
to the OP... Single wire transmission of power is not new... i use it every day... putting 2 diodes on the end and calling it Zero ampere Voltage is a joke. Its just a really simplified, and dangerous, rectifier. And i am appauled that it wasn't picked up straight away. There are methods of creating massive voltage differences with low ampere. Look it up it has nothing to do with collapsing magnetic fields (though this is a way to do it, it is also a way to loose a lot of your energy as heat from your conductor resistance). You want static electricity as a means of high voltage and low amps.
And to the last poster... WOW another glass jar experimenter claiming the all knowing about the Meyers effect... ZZZZzzzZZZzzz and your asking for money!!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: CrazyEwok on August 25, 2009, 08:39:42 AM
And to further my responses to the follow on posters...
Those claiming to be producing more gas then Mr Meyers. if you have the same or exceeded his out put maybe look at your delivery... To look at his HOME MADE buggy and say yeah i can't run my 5.4 litre camero on the same rig would be a massive oversight. A few points for you
1. His is a home made engine... i would "guess" (this is an observation pointed out to me by someone who is a close friend of mine who also builds engines for his own use) that the compression ratio for that engine is very high... if you want high compression on your standard engine get yourself a form of compressor (super charger/turbo).
2. You may think you understand but until you build somethign that works the same witht he same results you don't. Now i am not saying what he has is special what i am saying is unless your unit works on his same principals and your getting close to the same output you don't KNOW anything you THINK.
3. There are many ways to skin a cat, this is just an idea if you have a different one good make a new thread, i didn't click on this one to read about something else.
4. Lets argue about what he said and what he meant... in fact lets make a debate about it... then we all can join in en mass... you'll have the same effect!!! we'll call it a Mass-debate.

Get on with it. I have now got a "generator" with an output just shy of 1000v and a measurable amp push of ~1milliamp. The plans are freely available all over the internet.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: triffid on August 25, 2009, 02:58:46 PM
test
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel...
Post by: lancaIV on November 01, 2019, 02:01:21 PM
Water as fuel :
home-depot 800 Watt electric genset 150 Euros

water hydrolysis converter for the above gen-set 100 Euros (~ gun-engine device)

gen-set lifetime by "ordinary" fuel use : 8000 hours
estimated work-life by hotter and more radical hydrogen 4000 hours max.,uncoated engine


the water-fuel engine KWh-electric generating costs : minimum < 10/ > 9  Euro-cents

250 Euros, 3,5 years work-life ,4000 h x  0,8 KW,2,5% investment tax
250 x 0,31 : 800 KWh p.a.~ 9,7 €cents/KWh




water as fuel : earth batteries with less precision need are also in that price level and less

5 Euro-cents or 5,5 US$cents/ KWh has to be the first economic target : US b2b electricity average price