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 785778 times)

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1245 on: September 14, 2009, 10:57:51 PM »
Can you show me a working model?

Offline froarty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1246 on: September 15, 2009, 02:33:08 PM »
No, I am but a poor technician playing with HHO in my basement but the Mills (BlackLight Power) validation at Rowan university is an example and no matter how you feel about his theory don't make the mistake of ignoring his data. The fractional state aspect of his hydrino theory is either wrong or in a format the mainstream simply can't understand. My theory [ http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-relativistic-hydrogen-inside-casimir-cavity-appears-have-fractional-quantum-state-external-perspective-25072.html]  combines papers from work that is understood by the mainstream - even if they don't agree with the math which is why I had to include the paper by Zottia to justify the math - the argument against using K-G or Poincare equations is correct for free space but as Zottoa points out not when the isotropy is broken and you start having space-time gradients (Casimir efffect changes ratio of long to short vacuum flux proportional to distance cubed of the plate spacing for nonideal metals). The maths are employed from a relativistic perspective and seem to allow electrons to occupy the same space/states which is why dirac equations are used in free space for electrons. Inside the cavity however you can have multiple values of time occupying the same space due to the gradient of casimir force. Of course inside the cavity the atoms are normal to each other but I am proposing that like a polar to linear translation it allows you to perform math that would be denied in the other format.

Many scientists agree all these anomallies are probably related - It's been around for so long that it isn't going to be anything obvious or would have long since been resolved, The theories proposed all conflict with the physics of free space so it is likely the more recent work in Cavity QED is needed to explain it through the exceptions that occur inside the cavity. I guess I am saying the cavity is more responsible for the excess energy than the ambient gas employed - It has nothing to do with combustion and other gases ill probably be employed in the future but for now the size of monatomic hydrogen vs the diatomic resistance to motion of certain catalytic geometries is a happy coincidence that we may be able to harness. I am hoping the work of Myers and others will allow a grandfather clause to utilize this new science without license but the first challenge is actually trying to identify how Stan tapped into this source. any ideas?
Regards
Fran

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1247 on: September 16, 2009, 01:10:56 AM »
The one issue I see is heat. The splitting of the water molecules generates no detectable heat with Stan Meyer's demonstrated devices. Besides the heat issue, yes, there are similarities, but, I do not see enough commonalities to make a connection between the experiments you described and Stan Meyer's purposed theories. On the other hand I will accept your advice and not ignore the facts that have been presented. Thank you.

You will have to forgive me, for, I am not a person to make long winded posts. I'm more of a mechanical type person than a writer...



Offline lefferdink

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1249 on: October 03, 2009, 05:47:03 PM »
Ladies & Gentlemen:
Who or is anyone working on Stan Meyers water spark plug injector?

Offline dankie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1250 on: October 03, 2009, 06:32:39 PM »
Yes , a very competent builder is working on the VIC and injector @ ionizationx.com

He is probably the best builder we have , unfortunately he is very private person .

I am working on the Hydroxyl refill patent with triple tubes with an 3 phase sine inverter I made, I think the injector will be harder than meets the eye .


Offline lefferdink

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1251 on: October 04, 2009, 05:31:19 PM »
Thank you very much Mr.Dankie for the information.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1252 on: March 20, 2010, 03:50:29 PM »
My theory of the Stan Meyer water cell

It is basically DC Pulse vis the Primary to a LCR resonance circuit in the Secondary.  That will lead-out (bring-in) electron motion energy from the surrounding.

The details are in the thread - Pulsed DC Transformer with embedded magnets.

That explains why there is no 'one frequency to break up the water molecule".  The frequency is the LCR resonance frequency and is "construction dependent".  Stan Meyer actually "hit" on the more powerful technology of leading out energy via pulsing a resonance circuit.

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4027
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1253 on: March 20, 2010, 08:18:30 PM »
You are right. Meyer found that system, but others have also a merit because that looks like electrostatic field sucking electrons from ground (in that case from water). Water is changing into gas, but not hydroxy rather HHO. Basically it works similar to heat pump.

Offline raburgeson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1254 on: March 22, 2010, 05:09:23 PM »
Well try to get to the truth from the internet. Here's the buzz, Dr Roger Leir has gotten hold of the car. Now here's my take on it. If anyone got hold of the car it wasn't until after something was done to it to make it a nonworking piece of crap. The government and oil cartels would not let that car out without fake replicated parts that do not perform. We all know the drill, it works, it don't work.

Offline guruji

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://andyborg.tripod.com
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1255 on: October 26, 2011, 10:09:23 PM »
Hi Guys on the videos of Ravi it says that inductors should be wound straight not bifilar on each rod. Does this mean that with one coil only?
Thanks

Offline canufi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/canufi
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1256 on: May 25, 2012, 03:45:11 AM »
H2O doesn't even vibrate in any electrical fashion, let alone has the capacity to hold resonant energy.

The word Resonance has many different meanings. Stan Meyer was specifically referring to the Dielectric breakdown level of water.  He has stated this in the video called "lost" tapes interview. Unfortunately a lot of people have misinterpreted resonance to mean something else, such as how glass cracks if you sing at a certain pitch. Water is not like glass - water is an electric fluid  with a specific dielectric breakdown.  It has a weak dielectric strength which means it will leak and discharge, so his circuit was built to avoid setting the capacitor off too early.

My youtube channel has more information on the theory and physics of Stan Meyer:
http://www.youtube.com/user/canufi

Therefore electrolysis can NEVER under ANY type of circumstance be more than 99% efficient.

Stan was using dielectric breakdown of water, similar to a spark plug that breaks down air and the air becomes a conductor. Faraday did not do dielectric breakdown turning water into a plasma - faraday used chemicals and chemistry.

Please learn about dielectric breakdown, plasma, avalanche effect, and turning water into a conductor. Faraday used water as a resistor, causing heat. Stan used water as a CONDUCTOR, which is the opposite of a resistor. All the information is available on my youtube channel called canufi.

Stan was a jesus loving religious nut - I'm a non religious skeptic here to put the rigor and physical theory into Stan's work. Stan was slightly delusional, as was Tesla. Tesla invented many things and was obsessed with the number 3, which was not scientific - it was delusional. Inventors are delusional wackjobs and you have to get over that. Stan would have never put all this money time and effort into a scam like this, there are much easier ways of scamming people then using known scientific processes such as dielectric breakdown. If Stan did defraud people, it wasn't intentional - it was because of his delusions. There is a big difference between purposely scamming someone, versus being delusional and ripping someone off by accident because you made a mistake in your understanding.

Offline canufi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/canufi
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1257 on: May 25, 2012, 03:51:04 AM »
Well try to get to the truth from the internet. Here's the buzz, Dr Roger Leir has gotten hold of the car. Now here's my take on it. If anyone got hold of the car it wasn't until after something was done to it to make it a nonworking piece of crap. The government and oil cartels would not let that car out without fake replicated parts that do not perform. We all know the drill, it works, it don't work.

Stephen Meyer, Stan's brother, should be able to get it working since he would know more about the dials and knobs on the car and how to set them. For whatever reason, Stephen seems to have done absolutely dick all to help the project... I don't think he quite understands the significance of what Stan was doing. Stephen seems to be diddling around with other things and inventing supposedly better devices... but what about KISS? Why can't someone just show a simple demonstration of a device instead of all this complex crap?

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1258 on: May 25, 2012, 06:42:00 PM »
 google hydrinos.  It has alot to do with Myers water cell.  The science behind hydrinos is that electrons can drop to a lower ground state in a hydrogen atom.  This drop releases photons just like any other quantom leap. Myers clearly explains that his resonance was setup using the capacitance of the cell and tunable inductors to maintain an electric field stimulation of the water.  Dielectric breakdown was avoided.  The excitation or power input was therefore limited to resistave losses in the tank circuit.  The electric field was then used to hydrolise the water efficiently.  But it didn't end there.  The hydrogen once leaving the cell was molecular hydrogen.  This is two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded.  He had various ways of ionizing the molecular hydrogen into a plasma.  He also employed methods of electron sequestering or removal from the plasma.  This allows atomic hydrogen to exist in greater proportion to molecular.  All of the aforementioned processes use energy.  Now comes the part that ties into hydrinos.  Atomic hydrogen suppose to be as low as you can go as far as atomic ground state.  But if the electrons are forced to cool or loose their at rest energy then you get hydrinos as a product and photons are emitted.  (have no idea of the frequency of these photons but believe they must be of very short wavelengths.)  These photons then start supplying the ionization process with radiation.  This radiation begins to support the whole ionization electron cooling power needs. As molecular hydrogen arrives in the reactor more and more hydrinos are produced.  Producing more and more photons to produce more and more hydrinos.  The whole deal is primed.  Recombination of the hydrinos with oxygen results in an exothermic reaction like rapid oxidation of anything does.  Oversimplified I am sure

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1259 on: May 26, 2012, 09:42:52 AM »
Sparks:

HOW can electrons jump to a lower ground state in Hydrogen atom?
There is only one electron and so it is in the lowest band on the Hydrogen atom.

 Care to explain?

Also, Stan describes he was seperating the water by momentarilly pulling away orbital electrons from the water molecule see Fig 1.9
And you can see the dielectric breakdown at the end of the pulse train in figure 1.3 this is the point where the water breaks down.

Stan was using a stainless steel that has a highly resistive coating.  I look on this as the dielectric.  The water has dielectric properties but the gasses leaving the water isn't like a dielectric rupture.  The voltage read across the cell drops when the pulse train stops due to the capacity of the cell dumping back into the line thru the series inductors.  One of the inductors is variable and tuned according to the capacity of the cell to make the circuit resonant.  More bang for the input buck.
  As far as hydrinos they're pretty controversial.  Intuitive but controversial.  I'm sure a Mathmatical physicists could do a little tweaking on some of the more famous and heavily relied on equations and explain them.