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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power  (Read 785635 times)

Offline CrazyEwok

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1230 on: September 09, 2009, 06:31:50 AM »
@dankie i didn't ask you any free circuit as i already have the phase lock loop circuit done and working i have constructed the all design stanley meyer proposed with the resonant scanning circuit and lock indicator and feedback obviously.

Idiot is who really don't understand that electrons are consumed (being attached to the oxygen atoms to allow the hydrogen to be liberated) yes splitting the water as you know you must pass the current thru the water to make electrolysis.

lol... "consume" and electron huh... you do know that you can't technically consume anything...  (consume being in context of destroy, not ingest)
water is not consumed even in electrolysis, it is broken down / separated. The electrons may be removed (eg taken/absorbed by the electrode with the posititive charge) but its not consumed. Your statement about current goes in direct opposition with stan's theory. "yes splitting the water as you know you must pass the current thru the water to make electrolysis."
Since Mr Meyers tried to get as little current as he could your statement in this regard is null and void. If we were talking about brute force electrolysis you would be on the right track... As for your constant request for donations... if you want donations work for a charity... if you want investors speak to companies... you wuoldn't go to the goverment welfare department and ask the people in line if they can spare you some cash to go bowling would you?

Offline sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1231 on: September 09, 2009, 06:33:44 AM »
L505 You are a moron. It is an example of how can you use electrons. You should stop being so ridiculous you seems to be a 15 years old the way you try to offend me. You probably think also that you can make resonance with very high resistance wire as the resonant inductor right?
Please stop being counter productive.
If you ever read about the info i posted you should know that:

Electrons can be emitted out of a wire (by thermionic emission) this is what he mean when says electron consumption. Meyer talk about 3 different things in his patents and papers. Resonance, Collision and electrolysis.

Photons are released from the changing of high to low energy states of the electron orbit. Photons have no mass they are electromagnetic radiation or energy.

His patents hide very well his secret but people who commonly read them aren't high voltage engineers and mostly because people tends to believe what they heard. 99,99999% of High voltage engineers wont even read the meyer papers even if they probably have studied collision on the university. Because the 2° law of thermodynamics that have being implanted in they brains.

Meyer MAKE Reference to TAY PAtent witch talks about collision.

 


Offline newbie123

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 459
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1232 on: September 09, 2009, 07:10:19 AM »
Electrons might just be considered energy carriers in electrolysis..   two electrons come into  a cell with an energy of at least 1.23 eV  ...  Do work (make gas or heat)  ... Then two electrons  leave with 0 eV.. 


What Meyer's proposes is:   0 electrons (or a few) come into a cell from HV source, and voltage performs the work..    and electrons are "sucked" out of water molecules  (BS) ...

Thermionic emission involves lots of heat...   Field (induced) emission might be at play with the laser light injection & electrodes...




quarktoo

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1233 on: September 09, 2009, 07:47:13 PM »
Meyer stated that the electrons were converted into photons and the oxygen atoms were tricked into accepting the highly energized laser photons in exchange for their covalent electrons which is how he produced the ozone efficiently.

The ozone was mixed with steam and made to combine in a resonant cavity and that is a simple well known process. (Ultrasonic mixer)

The H2O has now become H2O2 which is hydrogen peroxide which is rocket fuel. The H2O2 hits a catalyst at exactly the time when it goes from High pressure to low pressure and while a high voltage high frequency pulse is driven through it. This causes the H2O2 to flash into superheated steam and is a well known process where the molecule is FRACTURED hence the term "SUPERHEATED STEAM EXPLOSION"

This is what people have been trying to figure out but are too stupid to get past the counter intel that has been supplanted into their feeble brains.

I find it amazing that I have given you the process used to make water fuel twice before and yet you argue about who is the dumbest. From my perspective, you all are.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 10:47:24 PM by quarktoo »

Offline kostarv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1234 on: September 14, 2009, 01:15:39 PM »
Hello!
Maybe someone could help us with a wise advice? We’re now studying  Ravi’s Water Fuel cell Replication from http://www.panaceauniversity.org/ and we faced a conflict:
In this manual we couldn't find the frequency at which the converter “boils” the water. What frequency should we tune the device? Does somebody know?

Thanx in advance
Kosta

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1235 on: September 14, 2009, 04:48:57 PM »
There is no special frequency...

Offline kostarv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1236 on: September 14, 2009, 05:02:14 PM »
Hm.... do you know where can i get clear and workable HHO manual?

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1237 on: September 14, 2009, 05:13:23 PM »
Sorry, there is no manual either...


Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1239 on: September 14, 2009, 05:28:28 PM »
Did you actually read the article before you posted the link? Was the blog understandable? Can you replicate the experiment and show us definite proof of the concept?

Offline kostarv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1240 on: September 14, 2009, 05:35:26 PM »
We're started to study the HHO topic with Ravi Cell manual http://panaceauniversity.org/Ravi%20Cell.pdf but we didn't find any mentions about the mechanism frequencies, so i addressed wise people - you : )

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1241 on: September 14, 2009, 05:45:50 PM »
If you did the experiment, then, you would know the answers to your questions.

Offline kostarv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1242 on: September 14, 2009, 05:56:26 PM »
Which experiment exactly?

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1243 on: September 14, 2009, 06:03:44 PM »
The Ravi/Lawton experiment that you posted the link to.

Offline froarty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1244 on: September 14, 2009, 07:00:38 PM »
I understand the article because I wrote it - which is to say I integrated other peoples work. based on the Puthoof atomic model my theory is very similar to the Haisch-Moddel model and could actually be tested in the same fixture. Only difference is the way we interpert the rectification of relativistic (fast) hydrogen energy. Everyone (Mills,LENR,star in a jar) all depend on the equivalence boundary of a Casimir cavity to diverge inertial frames which was introduced by Italiane researchers DiFiore et all back in 2002. It appears the small 10E-14 average deacceleration inside vs outside occurs in gradients proportional to the Spacing of the plates (or in your case either the miniscus of conductive electrolyte or actually pores on the plates) can be accelerated by heat like mills disassociating tungsten filament or acoustic energy. That is, once the equivalence boundary is set up by the Casimir effect the resulting tiny acceleration of the inertia frame can accept contributions from other sources due to the confinement. I think this is why some of the Japanese /Arata  - Zang experiments and other LENR experiments take weeks or even months to produce excess energy while the heated variety like Mills at Black Light Power are instant. I think this would not have languished for so long except for the misidentification of "fast" hydrogen as being fractional quantum state which is impossible. When Jan Naudts published his paper he did not emphasize the meaning - He was defending Mills but people took this to mean he was defending fractional states but his proof was from a math perspective and apparently you can solve for fractional states from a relativistic perspective outside the cavity - and so the war of disinformation has progressed. that is all IMHO of which you are certainly free to disagree.
Regards
Fran