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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power  (Read 828947 times)

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #465 on: September 27, 2007, 10:31:32 AM »
Given to me by a friend

I have wound one version of the bifilar inductors to go in our inductor test bank switch box.
 See this image - I believe it explains it quite well. It also explains the benefits of using bifilar inductors over standard inductors.I calculated ages ago that you would need a huge inductance to get the WFC cell stack to resonate! Bifilar may do the trick.
 
http://overunity.ifrance.com/Magnetricity_com%20___%20NEOGEN%20Dynamo%20Project_fichiers/NEOGEN_BIFILAR.jpg

I am saying that the file Astweth references regarding bifilar winding of inductors is full of absolute nonsense and garbage.  That's all.  The claims are that a 250,000X increase in energy storage capacity is made by using the same number of turns, same diameter and length on same core.  In truth, there is no increase in energy storage and a lowering of the self-resonant frequency due to increased effect of interwinding capacitance. 

Ashtweth is a believer in magic and knows so little about science that he is prone to believe and pass on as fact any crap he hears.  The man has no discernment; no judgement of his own on technical matters.  He surrounds himself with charlatan magicians, all of whom talk plenty big stuff but none produce anything but mumbo jumbo.

Hi HissyfitNihilism,

The bifilar coil shown on the Neogen drawing is the basically the same as the one Tesla got a patent granted on. In there it is stated how the 250000 times energy storage is created.  (the tesla patent is even shown on that website).
I'm not saying wether it is right or wrong, but if you say it is wrong you apparently know something Tesla didn't......

Regards

Robert

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #466 on: September 27, 2007, 10:37:22 AM »
Hello everyone,

For you bifilar chokes, you want high resistance; you won?t get the type of high resistance you need. 26 AWG a copper wire is too thick, 36 AWG is to thick, for maximum resistance use 44 AWG. Or anything above, and use lots of it. 2000 foot for an ideal choke with the kind of capacitors you guys are using, also use a ferrite rod for a core.

The thinner the more you can wind on the rod, plus the thinner the more resistance!

Thanks for that video Hydro!

Peace!
 ;)

Hi,

I like to add to this:

If you read Stans technical brief you will find he later used SS wire for the chokes because it has higher resistance. This higher resistance imparts electron flow further (travelling IN the wire) and permits therefore higher voltage potential (traveling AROUND the wire).

Regards

Robert

btw I've got my SS 316L tubes now and will start building a cell this week.

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #467 on: September 27, 2007, 10:50:44 AM »
Hi,

Please forgive my intrusion, I just wanted to offer the following.

I take interest in noting that no one has recognized that the production of ozone by high voltage discharge is a "Cold Fusion" process on the molecular level!  It is known that very little input energy is required for the production of enormous amounts of ozone gas. 

Lets assume that an environment of air and and environment of water are one and the same, the only difference being the density of the medium in question. Tesla indicated in his ozone patent, that he had devised a means by which gasses other than ozone could be produced, unfortunately he never revealed how this device could be adapted to produce the other gasses, or did he. 

Quote:

568,177 Apparatus for Producing Ozone

In my present improvement I have utilized appliances of this general character under conditions and in combination with certain instrumentalities, hereinafter described, which enable me to produce, without difficulty and at very slight expense, ozone in any desired quantities. 

I would state the apparatus which I have devised for this purpose is capable of other and highly important uses of a similar nature, but for the purposes of the present case I deem it sufficient to describe its operation and effects when used for the purpose of generating ozone.

End Quote

It must be remembered Tesla wanted to burn/combust atmospheric nitrogen, and successful in doing so, the frequency and potential of the current required for this was hundreds of times greater than those required for the production of ozone. 

In the open atmosphere the circuit in this patent 568,177 produces ozone, in a different environment.....

The bifilar winding is very special arrangement.  It was around long before the birth of Tesla, he was simply the one to recognize its importance and significance in the sphere of electricity.  Its true power and purpose can only be demonstrated when it is properly wound, and placed in a circuit specifically designed for its use, and therein lies the problem.  There are too many theories as to the bifilar coils purpose! 


Regards



Hi Erfinder,

No need to apologize, we're glad to see you here! Hope you can help us further. Seeing as I'm not familiar with the ozone patent it seems to me that tesla was hinting to something else.
Maybe you can let us know if there is anything important in the mentioned patent that can be useful for our quest. That being, upping the voltage potential and at the same time restricting electron flow through the cell.
If useful would you post the patent here?

Of course any other ideas or suggestions from you are welcome!

thanx.

Robert

PULSED)ReverseH/OfuelcelI

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #468 on: September 27, 2007, 10:52:15 AM »
As the skeptic (crankheliyus) stalks his prey, unsuspecting it itself is being stalked, moves in for the kill. But unknown by the skeptic, the formers have picked up his strong scent.

They are scattering, and in the distance a faint war cry can be heard, ?laws of thermodynamics? he screams!

And in his last ditch efforts he whines, ?you are wrong, because you are just saying what some one else said and believe? not know that they themselves have fallen to this silent terror, and so this creature of the night, because he has nothing more useful to do, continues to feed on other peoples blood.     


scotty1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
    • leedskalnin.com
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #469 on: September 27, 2007, 01:21:07 PM »
Hehehehe....shifting and dividing and concentrating.....mmmmm..heard those words before...
Shaking the medium.....natures way....
Yes...i can do that.  ;D

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #470 on: September 27, 2007, 02:06:03 PM »
It seems I get best results at lower power levels, I think more tubes would certainly be better.

First low power run

Twice the power level of the first


Edit, sorry I had wrong link for second video  :-[
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 03:51:29 PM by RunningBare »

saintpoida

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #471 on: September 27, 2007, 02:30:32 PM »
ok so heres my silly question

with the mosfet does it matter which way the legs are wired up?

i noticed on the diagram there is a g, d, s next to each leg so im wondering
how do i work out which leg is which on the actual mosfet?

Thanks i will probably have more stupid questions like this shortly!

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #472 on: September 27, 2007, 03:56:31 PM »
Sorry guys, repeated same link for second video, here is the correct link...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8QASQgYarRU

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #473 on: September 27, 2007, 04:00:42 PM »
errr yup, you connect those pins wrong and you can possibly kiss that device goodbye  ;D

g=gate goes to the junction of the resistors 220 ohm and the 820
d=drain goes to the coil that feeds the inner tubes
s=source goes to 0V line.

Which mosfet are you using
This is the pinout for the buz350 http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets/siemens/BUZ350.pdf

ok so heres my silly question

with the mosfet does it matter which way the legs are wired up?

i noticed on the diagram there is a g, d, s next to each leg so im wondering
how do i work out which leg is which on the actual mosfet?

Thanks i will probably have more stupid questions like this shortly!

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #474 on: September 27, 2007, 04:07:20 PM »
ok so heres my silly question

with the mosfet does it matter which way the legs are wired up?

i noticed on the diagram there is a g, d, s next to each leg so im wondering
how do i work out which leg is which on the actual mosfet?

Thanks i will probably have more stupid questions like this shortly!

Hi,

You will need a so called Datasheet for that specific Mosfet. Just put the type number (of the mosfet) and the word "datasheet" in Google and it will find you the datasheet. On there you can find out which leg is which.....

@runningbare
Sorry, I think you didn't understand him right....

regards,

Robert

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #475 on: September 27, 2007, 04:07:46 PM »
Keep your hair on!  :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil
Quote
Some bifilars have adjacent coils in which the convolutions are arranged so that the potential difference is magnified (i.e., the current flows in same parallel direction). The magnetic field created by one winding is multiplied with that created by the other, resulting in a greater net magnetic field.


A superb example of idiotic non-science tripe.  Just the kind of pure idiot fantasy Ashtweth loves!

Bifilar winding of a coil does not increase its magnetic field energy storage.  It increases its parasitic capacitance, thus lowering its self-resonant frequency.  Whoever drew this picture and wrote these words has misinterpreted Tesla and made him look foolish. 

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #476 on: September 27, 2007, 04:12:23 PM »
@ Runningbare,

Have you already considered using an EEC (Electron extraction circuit) as that seems to up the efficiency further? ( the extraction will  stop atoms from recombining after they have been separated already).

regards

Robert
 

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #477 on: September 27, 2007, 04:15:37 PM »
@dutchy

Not yet, I'm still trying to get the best out of the circuit, and as you have seen my tubes are pitiful to say the least, I will try EEC later, but I do not have whopping great capacitors, best I have is a few 11000mfd types.

@ Runningbare,

Have you already considered using an EEC (Electron extraction circuit) as that seems to up the efficiency further? ( the extraction will  stop atoms from recombining after they have been separated already).

regards

Robert
 

saintpoida

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #478 on: September 28, 2007, 12:01:35 AM »
thanks runningbare and dutchy found it

If anyone else in australia and needs a part number IRFP240
i was told its a replacement part for BUZ350. It has same voltage/amp
specs so it should do the trick.

3 more questions

1.) If i wanted to wire in a light to tell me power is on would i just wire it in parallel with the
power switch? And would it need a resisitor or anything as well? (LED)

2.) If i wanted to wire in lights to flicker with the pulse where  would i wire those in?

3.) Finally the dum question! On the diagram on page 10 of d14 where it shows the wiring to
the knobs, switches, inputs/outputs etc i wire it up how i see there dont i?

What i mean is the ammeter for example has a cable going from its right side to 2 places
as does the mosfet, so i just wanted to check this is definately the correct way of doing this?

Thanks again guys! almost there

Oh and is a 7amp fuse ok instead of 6? i assume its ok

Spewing

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #479 on: September 28, 2007, 03:22:00 AM »
Keep your hair on!  :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil
Quote
Some bifilars have adjacent coils in which the convolutions are arranged so that the potential difference is magnified (i.e., the current flows in same parallel direction). The magnetic field created by one winding is multiplied with that created by the other, resulting in a greater net magnetic field.


A superb example of idiotic non-science tripe.  Just the kind of pure idiot fantasy Ashtweth loves!

Bifilar winding of a coil does not increase its magnetic field energy storage.  It increases its parasitic capacitance, thus lowering its self-resonant frequency.  Whoever drew this picture and wrote these words has misinterpreted Tesla and made him look foolish. 

Yes...it is multiplied by two, the number of windings.  But it is the same energy storage as a single coil with an equal number of total windings.  The idea that bifilar winding gives some great multiple of the inductive energy storage over a single-filar coil of same total turns is simply wrong and can easily be disproven by simply doing the experiment.  All wiki means is that the coils will aid each other if in phase (i.e. 1+1=2x) and oppose each other if anti-phase (i.e. 1-1=0x).  The idea that hundreds of thousands of times energy storage is magically achieved by bifilar winding is just pure rubbish.

the transformer not under any kind of load should put out well over a thousand volts, the coils reduce current on both sides to the cell.. when the transformer starts to pulse the wfc threw the chokes the cell gets energized at that time, the cell is taking on a charge, during the off pulse of the primary side of the transformer the chokes is emitting back emf to the transformer witch is in parallel with both of the chokes "at that given time". by the time the 3rd pulse arrives the chokes work with the transformer in a series fashion, this multiplies the voltage across the cell.

each time the cell is step charged the voltage across the cell increases, each time the cell increases in voltage the output from the transformer to the chokes is increased, and stronger emf is emitted. once the cell reaches its peak the transfromer is now putting out over its maximum thousand volt rating because of the series positioning of the chokes. the second side of the circuit is now resonating, meaning the circuit, not the water fuel cell.

each time the cell takes on a step charge the amount of amps in pulses applied to the primary side of the coil drops, when the cell becomes completely charged hardly any amps is consumed from the primary side of the transformer.

this is not overunity, it is just a resonating "circuit" that works.