This is gonna help yall
FAST FOOD being served!!
Important Info from OUPower.com posted by RAVI as user ravzz:
THERE COULD BE THINGS YOU MISSED OUT OR LOOKED OVER
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: Ravi's Meyer Replication- Tap Water to H2
The input to the Water Fuel Cell (WFC) was 0.51 Amps only. Just made the videos and uploaded. Its totally Pulse Voltage and Frequency based...
Video 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vzTzqpp-Uk This video shows the innards of the WFC without water.
Video 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNJ_vjuO_ME This video shows Freshly filled Tap Water. No other impurities (Read no Salts or Acids or anything at all...just plain tap water and not distilled water) added.
Video 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1lScTsHBkQ This video is after the top is sealed and with an input of 0.5 Amps
from the Frequency Generator.
NOW THE OUTPUTS:
Presently the approximate volumetric gas discharge by an inverted
measuring flask is given below:
INPUT--H2+O2 cc/sec---H2 only cc/sec---H2 Lit/hr
0.5 A-----7.00--------------4.66-------------16.776
1.0 A-----8.66--------------5.78-------------20.808
1.5 A-----11.66-------------7.78-------------28.008
2.0 A-----14.00-------------9.33-------------33.588
3.0 A-----16.36------------10.91-------------39.276
4.0 A-----18.00------------12.00-------------43.200
*H2+O2 was calculated on an average basis for collection time of 30
secs. I'm not very sure of H2 and O2 volumes as I've calculated H2 as
2/3rd the volume of the total and O2 as 1/3rd the volume. Incase im wrong please do let me know how to calculate these.
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: Hi again
For Kumaran:
I'm not very sure if you are well versed with Stanley Meyer Technology.
I would be for one thing very impressed if you could generate anywhere close to the outputs mentioned with pulsed 12 Volts and HALF an AMP!!
Please donot confuse this with the regular high ampearage electrolysis. This is low ampearage high volage pulsed electrolysis!! wherein you use the voltage potential to break down the covalent bonds and by the way the water doesnt heat up as in the regular electrolysis. The temperature rise is at the most 3 - 4 deg above ambient after about half hour of working!!
If you take a closer look at the third video you would see large bubbles of the range of 4mmto 10mm+leaving the tubes, so dont go by the more visible slow moving smaller bubbles.
To SeaMonkey and MarkinAustralia :
I initially started off with Dave's circuit.....was in touch with him to sort out a few issues with the circuits the went on to make a few improvements. You could say that Dave's circuit was the skeleton where i started off but had to make some changes. Of the original circuit i had a few burnt/blown out components and low gas generation as my setup is with 9 tubes of 9 inch lengths and his was 6 tubes of 5 inch lengths so the exposed surface areas are comparitively higher. From what I presumed Stan used tubes of 18 inches so I went for half his length but the same number as in his video.
Material used is 316L seamless pipes. Annealed for 3 hours in inert amosphere of Argon to remove all residual magnetism and cold work stresses before they are assemled. Leads used are 316L 1.2mm dia wires to all 18 pipes individually spot welded. The inner pipe is 1/2 inch longer than the outer at the bottom for the setup for connections.
You need to be very patient with the conditioning of the pipes.....it took me months to get the generation you see.
Volts x Amps = Watts
12 x 0.51 = 6.12 watts the generation is around 7 cc/sec
which coverts to 16.776 Lits / hour
16.776 x 2.4 watts (Faraday/lit/hour generation) = 40.262 Watts
Well I seem to be generating the equivalent of 40.2 watts as per Faraday with just 6.12 Watts.........I hope this answers Kumaran's question aswell.
I dont know if im right but I seem to be generating 550% excess
as the above works out to 40.2/6.12 x 100 = 656.86%
656.86 - 100 (Faraday) = 556.86% OU !!
Correct me if im wrong with the calculations.
Alright now to the crux of the situ... I dont know how long i'll be allowed to post this stuff over the net as initialy when I was in touch with Dave I had sent some pics to him and my place was raided within a few hours after the mail to him. I was kind of helped out during this time by Dave and Patrick Kelly.Though ive had success a few months ago I had not come out in the open but now Ashtweth of Panaces Bocaf has convinced me to go public as this could save me any more future harassment.....Im taking a huge chance by posting this right now.... you can see more details of the problem at
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EngineerinIndia.htm The above writeup is on a few other sites aswell. This had happened some time in Jan this year.
I'll try and post a few more videos using 12 Volts 1 amp 1.5 amp.... at the earliest and post the links. Try and save the vids incase theyre removed.
Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:36 am Post subject:
Generation of H2 + O2 was 7CC per sec
the H2 generation was 4.66 CC/sec and this works out to 16.776 lits of H2/hr
Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:20 am Post subject: Hi again
Posted new video a while ago.
Its almost 1 amp and look at the way the leads to the WFC get heated up and burn the protective tubing. The tubing is in place so that the leads dont get shorted out. I have individual leads coming out of the WFC for each of the pipes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiyfwWuA9gAA closeup video of the burnt out leads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nto66FTfdTg I have no clue as yet why this is happening. The setup probably needs more pipes I guess.
I'll post info if I figure out something.
Big-bubbles:
The conditioning would take time...just keep lugging and you would end up with bubbles like the ones I get.
The lights are pulse timing circuit visual indicators.
Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:09 am Post subject:
For Markin:
I think the suface area for higher amps needs to be increased to get similar outputs as that of 0.5 Amps......so more number of pipe sets should inrease the efficiency at higher ameparages. Its a presumption but could be given a try in the future....any more ideas on increasing eff. at higher amps??
Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:35 am Post subject:
I would firstly advice you to go through all of stan's patents to have better understanding of the process.
There is a lot of important stuff in the US and International patents wherein in one of the patents he mentions higher efficiency of a tube setup compared to a plate setup for his proces (so I just didnt want to experiment with the plate setup on his process but I guess it works better with Bob's process). This answers your question Simon.
I could just give you everything but it could work for some and not work for some as the voltages and frequencies vary as per the WFC build and the impurities in tap water. I'm saying this coz till I made the changes when the components blew up on Dave's circuit i didnot get the right combo. The exposed surface area of my setup is much larger as compared to Dave's. He has 6 tubes of 5" lengths and mine is 9 tubes of 9" length so there had to be variations and the thickness of his pipes is different from mine...I have a gap of 1 mm between the pipes the outer tube thickness varies this gap. The gap used by stan meyer was 1.587mm (1/16").. As per stan the lesser the gap higher the efficiency.
Incase you are thinking of this gap youll have to use use three spacers of flexible foam on either end at 120 degree angles in the gap.I say fexible because you would not want any vibrations induced to be restricted as these vibrations help dissipate the bubbles from the surface. If you are not that well versed with mechanical skills, I would advice you to go for a higher gap as the space is very restricted and you might end up shorting the pipes. In longer lengths you should look for slight bends in the pipes as the pipes may get shorted. 1.5mm or 2mm gaps are also OK.
Points to note:
Check the new update of D14.pdf...theres an inductor added inbetween...its a must.
Patents show a variable resistor on the -ve side in between the WFC and the freq generator which everyone seems to have missed out (incl dave) in the '996 patent. This I had asked Dave about and he said it restricts the current going to the WFC.
My setup compared to Dave's has individual connections going to each of the 18 pipes.
Conditioning of the tubes takes a long time....SeaMonkey's explanatin stands good. Once you stop forming the brown muck you know you've conditioned the pipes and the gas generation increases at this point.
Kumaran I had subtracted 100% Faraday efficiency from the total and what you get then is the OU %. Your figure is for total efficiency of the WFC.
Kevin...Instead of trying to convert this to a plasma electrolysis reactor there is this Japanese Hokkaido University experiment which achieved some mind boggling results and was also replicated by JL Naudin...
These guys went OU with the generation of Hydrogen. Their experiment and results link
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgeneration.pdf As per their conclusions: 'current efficiency' is 8000% to the input!!!
I'm nowhere close to where they are!!
Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:39 am Post subject:
You could always build Dave's setup without making any changes including the pipe thickness, height and diameters and achieve the same results as Dave did. His circuit should work for his WFC build size. Conditioning is the key to his generation.
Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:49 am Post subject:
DONOT USE 316L AS LEAD WIRE THEY HAVE TOO HIGH A SPECIFIC RESISTANCE TO BE USED AS LEADS
approxmately 46.8 times that of copper...incase you want to introduce a resistance you could always used a wire wound variable reistance.
This seems to have been the problem of leads heating up.
Specific Resistances:
Copper : 1.63 MICROHM-cm
316 : 75 MICROHM-cm
Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:33 am Post subject:
I'm realy sorry about the patent number.
its 4,798,661 and the variable resistance I was talking about is in Figure 1 with numbers 60a...to....60n on the inner tube.
I dont use a blocking diode. No there no dramatic increase when you vary upuntil you condition the tubes.
When I initially started off I could hardly see any bubbles emerging. But as the conditioning proceeds over a period of time you see the gas generation gradually increase. At a point where i was generating a lot of small bubbles I thought I reached the peak but I just wanted to see what would happen if I condition a little more and what I ended up with was making these large 10mm sized bubbles. Its not that the small bubbles accumulate to a bigger bubble but the moment the gen is switched on the large bubbles come rushing out, you can see this in the vids. I wonder if I condition some more I might endup with large bubbles only. Lets see how it goes.
The key to the whole process in my point of view is conditioning and this should go on for a while even after you stop making the brown muck and you end up with large bubbles like mine. It will take time but at the end of the day its worth it!
The dramatic gas increase happens in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 Amps in my WFC but above that you just need to keep checking as to where you get the highest efficiency for that particular WFC and it would be less than an Amp in any case. Look at my outputs the efficiency decreases as you increase the ampearage to the freq generator.
Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: CONDITIONING OF TUBES!!!!!
Alright guys make a note of this and save it some place
The conditioning process below was given to me by Dave Lawton and its what I followed religiously for months to reach the outputs. Consider this as the holy grail like I did and still do...
1. Donot use any resistance on the negative side when conditioning the pipes.
2. Start at 0.5 Amps on freq gen and switch off after 25 mins for 30 mins
3. Goto 1.0 Amps for 20 min and stop for 30 min
4. Goto 1.5 Amps for 15 min and stop for 20 min
5. Goto 2.0 Amps for 10 min and stop for 20 min
6. Goto 2.5 Amps for 5 min and stop for 15 min
7. Goto 3.0 Amps for 120 to 150 secs. need to check if WFC getting hot...if it does you need to reduce the time.
AFTER THE 7 STEPS ABOVE LET THE WFC STAND FOR ATLEAST AN HOUR BEFORE YOU START ALL OVER AGAIN. I used tap water for conditioning and no vinegar or any additives.... I donot know if adding something might work or not.
You would hardly see any gas generation at the beginning but it makes a lot of brown muck.....change the water after every cycle initially. DONOT touch the tubes with bare hands if the tube ends need to be cleaned of muck use a brush but donot touch!! As per my experience the brown muck if left in water for the next cycle heats up the water and you need to avoid this.
Then you see the reduction in generation of the brown stuff over a period of time and at a point the pipes dont make any brown stuff atall. You would have had very good generation of gas by now. You get a whitish powdery coat on the surfaces. Never touch the pipes with bare hands once this comes on.
DO THE CONDITIONING IN A WELL VENTILATED AREA OR PREFERRABLY CLOSE THE TOP AND VENT THE GAS OUT IN THE OPEN.
AS THE WFC IS LEFT ON FOR QUITE SOMETIME EVEN SMALL AMOUNT OF GENERATION CAN GET ACCUMULATED IN A CONSTRICTED SPACE AND COULD BE A HAZARD.
The above process to be done after annealing the pipes....see to it that no oxide formation is left on the pipes...use a detergent to wash off the pipes and rinse them thoroughly with fresh water.....assemble the setup including the leads and base.....finally flush the pipes with lots of fresh water......donot touch the pipes with bare hands after this.......
Good Luck and happy conditioning......RAVI
I'll be away for a day or two....will get to more explaining after that.
Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:57 am Post subject:
Thanks Bob been an avid silent follower of your work for a long time now....you have a great thing going keep up the good work!!
Bob its time we did something about the environmental mess the world is in.....its accelerating by the year and it wouldnt be long before that the powers be would realize that most of these changes are irreversible ......Vanishing Glaciers......melting polar caps.....Europe has seen the hottest summers in living memory.......and now Asia is going through the worst floods in the living memory.......we are heading for a disaster and have already reached a point of no return with the fossil fuel addiction.......time we make ourselves count....by helping others to make this technology feasible and easy to replicate......whatever small contribution.....no matter how much ever small to improve the air we breathe would go a long way for our childrens future......
We need people to know this side of science before its too late.......look at the change in the environment in the last 100 years......in the garb of development were ruining the world we live in for the future generations and we are shown a picture of development as prosperity.....actual fact being more the prosperity more we ruin the environment for our creature comforts......its a vicious cycle....we could introduce the alternate science at places where its hurting the environment the most atleast in a small way....
Bob lets see how they take this experiment and what they make of it...I wouldnt be surprised if some hooter comes onto the forum and starts rubbishing the work to make atleast a few people stay away from experimenting this setup....
I'm just hoping that the risk im taking in teaching people how to make this expt work wouldnt be for nothing!! I've been through some harassment before and can go through some more if its for the greater good.
Its time!! like you said Bob!
Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am Post subject:
A lot of people have been asking me for the circuit I used on the youtube mails.
The link to the circuit is below:
http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf The circuit given on page 7 with the inductors is what gives the highest efficiencies. The inductor on both positive and negative is a must.
Once youve built the circuit...it would be best to make the WFC as per the pipe sizes mentioned in D14 to avoid any setbacks.
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:18 am Post subject:
Hi Weggl,
I know about the passivation of stainless steels.
Like I said before I dont know if it would work for this process.......even if it does I dont know if you could get the same efficiencies.
Its a short time process so you need to passivate the pipes once they are assembled so that you dont disturb the layer formed which is usually less than a micron thick. If this doesnt work you could always revert back to the regular conditioning process but you will have to disassemble the whole setup and sand paper the outside of the inner tube and the inside of the outer tube to get rid of the passivated surface and expose a fresh surface then reassemble and start.
Let me know if this works.
PLEASE NOTE THAT POLISHED TUBES ARE NOT TO BE USED IN MAKING THE WFC
If they are the only ones you can find make sure they are not Nickel plated or Hard Chrome plated pipes and if they are Plain SS 304L or 316L but polished you could always use a sand paper.
You can use most of the 300 series Nickel-Chromium Steels but 316L would be the most preferrable and next would be 304L.......never go for 310 as this has the highest resistivity among the 300 series. Avoid Inconel grade pipes aswell.
Use ONLY SEAMLESS PIPES and not seam welded.
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:02 am Post subject:
I remember watching on one of Stan Meyer Videos where they mention the Output to be over 1700% faradays....I guess there's more work needed to be done in this direction.
Dave's unit was 250% OU mine looks a little higher....one of the reasons I think is because my unit is comparitively bigger 9" length 9 tubes compared to Dave's 5" length 6 tubes. Stans was 18"length 9 tubes...double the size of my WFC.
Is there a possibility that some thing like the Joe's Cell aether stuff is happening here?? Even Joe's cell takes a long time to condition and even that produces brown muck and doesnt do so after a while.....both have concentric tubes.. Needs very low amps...there are similarities....
Is there a possibility that the extra work is being done by Aether?
Is joe's cell conditioning similar to the one mentioned above??
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:53 am Post subject:
There is another difference that needs to be noted compared to Dave's Replication. I didnt remember the exact gap between the pipes till patrick just asked me what were the differences between my setup....sat down and calculated....
The gap in between the pipes was:
Outer Pipe OD : 25.317 mm
Thickness : 14 SWG or 2.032 mm
Outer Pipe ID : 25.317 - (2.032 x2) = 21.253mm
Inner Pipe OD : 19.930 mm
Thickness : 14 SWG or 2.032 mm
Gap is 1.323mm ( 21.253 - 19.930 )
and this adjusted to both the sides as the inside pipe is centered is
1.323/2 = 0.6615 mm on either sides of the inner tube.
So effectively the gap between the pipes is less than 0.670 mm
I went for a lesser gap by increasing the thickness of the outer tube.
If you go through Stans Canadian Patent he mentions that the lesser
the gap between the pipes more the efficiency
I had a lot of difficulty in the alignment of pipe as they were
shorting. Had to get them straightened on pipe alignment machine.
Wouldnt advice people without engineering skills to go for this small
a gap.
The higher output of my setup could be due to the smaller gap aswell.
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:32 am Post subject:
Hi everyone
Sometime ago Patick Kelley had suggested on shortening the 316L leads to the WFC so im onto it.....i've already changed about 6 leads and now two of them have started to leak water from the WFC.....need to change the rest of them and see how many of them start leaking.......seal them up and test the WFC.......should take me a few days for this whole process.......will keep you all updated.
I havent seen any postings about people saying that they are replicating this...or anything of the sort...
c'mon guys.....even I need some feedback if someone is trying to do something with my postings....or theres no point in going through all this for no reason but just for the archives sake....I need some pepping aswell...
Continued to part 2
