Guys, as you may know Dave has reported Cold current electricity from the cell, Patrick just sent me this, im not sure if he has uploaded the new 'cold current' circuit to the cell, but rest assured the plans wil be in there

"I'm afraid that papers of that nature just leave me cold (no pun intended) as I gain nothing from them.  I don't think in mathematical structures.

The subject of radiant, or "cold" energy is not well defined at this time.  Our familiar conventional electricity appears to be a transverse oscillation while the "cold" component appears to be a longitudinal oscillation.  Consequently, none of our instruments react to cold electricity and while it can power lights, motors, heaters, etc., the only way to actually measure it appears to be to charge a lead-acid battery using it and then measure the power stored in the battery by discharging it.  John Bedini remarks that after forty years of searching, that is the only mechanism which he has found.

Electromagnetic pulsing appears to be the main way of accessing this energy.  Bob Boyce's electrolyzer gets 10 x Faraday's supposed maximum, through magnetic pulsing of a hundred stainless steel plates in a row.  This is effectively pulsing a hundred capacitors in series as the electrolyte is essentially a dielectric.  Bob gets a major power gain by pulsing windings on a toroid, which is definitely a significant shape for cold electricity.  The power gain can be 10,000 amps of hot electricity, and as that is effectively the "losses" where cold electricity is concerned, the real "cold" power is so much greater that it can trigger a ground feeder leading to a lightning strike.  Bob found that out the hard way and was very lucky to survive being hit by that lightning strike.

The toroid is at the heart of many different COP>1 devices and its effect can be simulated by generating a rotating magnetic field without a toroid (devices like the Adams Motor for example).  That of course, is not the whole picture, as Thomas Henry Moray achieved massive power input without anything like that, so how do you explain input from an aerial as that appears fairly passive?

So, the bottom line is, that while I know that cold electricity can be tapped with rotating magnetic fields, strong dipoles (including sharp DC pulses and permanent magnets) and passive devices like aerials, Coler devices and the Joe Cell, it is clear that I really don't understand anything significant about it.
"

pese>>>>>


There r additions mate   >>>like detailed conditioning process posted by Ravi    >>>its an udate to d link you posted >>>check 



Gh. J.

Hi everyone,

Seeing as ther is such a big difference in the price between seamless and welded 316L tubing, can anyone explain why it is better to have seamless tubing?
For a first test rig can we not use 316L welded tube?

thanks.

Robert 

im just guessing but i would say its because of the smoothness inside/outside the seamless tube as there is no weld bead or whatever

but i dont actually know im just guessing lol

if i am right you can probably use a welded one anyway just make the gap bigger between the tubes
so no arcing can occur where the weld bead is??

Hmm, you might be right. I just presumed they would remove the excess bead after welding, but maybe not....

Robert

yeah beats me

Quote from: saintpoida on September 05, 2007, 01:56:02 AM

looks cool!!

i have been trying to look up and research bifilar winding for past couple days now and most of them that i see
are wound with 2 wires and have the 2 wires connected together at one end, but when looking at
stans stuff and d14 it looks more as if the 2 wires are wound together but then one is used for positive and one
is used for negative

so in simple terms when you bifilar wind the coil will you have 4 wires coming out of it or 2?

is this correct? or am i reading the diagram incorrectly? (cause they sit so close together)

anyone know the answer to the above quoted question?

You will have four wires coming out (2 on each side). How you connect those wires together depends on your specific situation. In the Stan Meyer case it seems like the pulse sent down one strand will be blocked by the induction in the other strand. (and therefore reduce current flow further)

Robert

Meyer's EEC circuit layouts compared to Lawton's recently posted EEC circuit that he is using to power that light bulb, among other loads...


In the first image, Meyer's simple EEC is shown. In this setup, the 'amp consuming device' is analogous to Lawton's light bulb. When the water in the WFC is being split, electrons are dislodged from the water and as successive positive pulses happen the electrons are effectively 'sucked up' by the amp consuming device. So, there are electrons in the water free, and when a positive pulse comes, the electrons move to the right electrode and move through the 'amp consuming device'.

In the second image, Meyer upgraded his setup and included a triggering mechanism whereby he can choose when he applies the positive pulses to the 'amp consuming device'. So Meyer could send some pulses to the WFC plates and split up the water, then he could trigger the switch and send pulses to the 'amp consuming device' whereby the electrons from the water would flow through it.


Lawton on the other hand, has modified Meyer's EEC a bit with the addition of those extra high capacity caps. These caps would, by thinking about it, charge up via the continued HV pulses that are being applied to the WFC, analogous to a Bedini type setup. The electrons would then move to and from the caps and cause fluctuating current to hit the bridge rectifier and power his load.


All in all, it seems there can be many different ways to implement the EEC...

Hi Tao,

I think the second EEC must work a lot better than the first. IN the first picture you can see the electron extraction is probably also limited by the chokes. In the second one the amp consuming device (bulb) bypasses the chokes to extract more electron from the circuit. (and therefore stopping Hydrogen and oxygen atoms from recombining)

Are you planning on building one of these cells too?

regards,

Robert

I agree with you, the second one is much better and for the reasons you mentioned.

y e s