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 826020 times)

ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #480 on: September 28, 2007, 03:48:43 AM »
Guys,  our circuit and tube replication of Raiv's is done and just needs conditioning now, we are entering Two universities with it in order to get a make shift Panacea lab and endorsement for open sourced engineers.

I do wish to publish our test results and process sere how ever it seems Humbugger under the user name 'HissyfitNihilism' is not moderated here so i don't wish to waste time sorting through his mess.


Mean time here is also a response you can put towards the universities if they question your results.

good luck all , Im off

"It would be worth responding in writing to the university's comments, stating that the Faraday supposed maximum has been proven to be incorrect, as electrolyzers built by Bob Boyce have achieved 216% Faraday on straight DC, and the Shigeta Hasebe DC electrolysis patent US 4,105,528 of 1978 shown at www.panaceauniversity.org/PatE14.pdf shows laboratory records of 1,000% the Faraday supposed maximum.

Further, the Faraday maximum quoted in the university correspondence relates to DC electrolysis, while the system to be demonstrated is not DC electrolysis but is pulsed water-splitting which is a completely separate system which draws additional energy from the surrounding environment.  When pulsed in a similar way, the Bob Boyce electrolyzer operates as a water-splitter and has measured efficiencies in the 1,000% Faraday range.

So while it is understandable that the two entirely separate systems have been confused on this occasion, it is necessary to point out that there is no direct connection between the two, and that due to the intake of additional environmental energy, the Law of Conservation of Energy is not broken.

It is also worth noting that Paul Zigouras has recently demonstrated a marine engine made by his company Zigouras Racing, operating with 200 HP of excess energy, run solely on the gases produced by splitting water with power produced by the engine electrics.  This would not be possible with Faraday DC electrolysis, but has been demonstrated to be perfectly possible with water-splitting using high-quality pulsed signals.

Paul Zigouras Infos

The information to date is:
1. The unit takes water in at one end and hydroxy gas exits the entire open end of the cell at the far end.  No water makes it as far as the exit.
2. The small unit has 20 to 30 plates 2-inches high, 8 inches long, the larger unit has 36 plates 3-inches high, 10 inches long.
3. The plates are 1/16 inch thick 316-grade or 318-grade stainless steel sandblasted with 60 grit alum oxide and spaced 0.025 inches apart (0.635 mm).
4. The voltage applied to the cell with the engine running is 13.8 volts.
5. The unit generates an output signal which is a very pure "perfect" square wave
6. The current is 190 amps for 5 gallons dissociated per minute
7. The oscillator frequency is 40 kHz
8. Paul says: "Two or three output transistors just will not hack it, you have to think big".
9. The COP of the cell is between 5 and 10
10. He started with plans from Kevin of WaterForFuel.com and modified them.  I have Kevin's data on order but I don't those plans really matter any more with all the extra information received today.
11. He uses a standard MSD 200-amp high performance alternator to supply the current via the battery.

This is actualy not how Meyer did it as his electronics found and auto-locked on to the resonant point of the cell and subsequently tracked it.  Paul's design is a long way from being perfect as most of the power does not produce hydroxy gas and the consequential loss of vast amounts of water makes it somewhat impractical except for stationary generators beside an unlimited source of water.

His unit with a less aggressive output drive, placed in a conventional electrolyser box like shown in D16.pdf, could well be a working solution.

Patrick

leeroyjenkinsii

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #481 on: September 28, 2007, 05:09:19 AM »
I'm new here and don't know all the politics, etc. buy HissyfitNihilism seems like an ass to me.  If you haven't anything constructive to offer, why don't you fuck off!!!

Can we say fuck off here?

leeroyjenkinsii

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #482 on: September 28, 2007, 05:21:36 AM »
Excuse my previous post.  It looks like it may have been in error.  I just read the sarcastic reply he had to ashtweth.  I read back further on his posts and see he is trying to explain his understanding.

Looks like I'm the ass here.  Also, the two of them may just need to get a room already.    ;D

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #483 on: September 28, 2007, 06:20:05 AM »
Erm, the field built is hardly 1+1, I do not know the exact figure, but to test out a hypothesis I rewound my levitation coil head with bifilar winding and it is "my" opinion that the field was more than twice the equivilent singular winding and the levitation of a half pound/233 gram steel ball bearing at only 21 volts 2 amps, while it is not scientific proof my video below shows an example of bifilar winding on levitation.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AelopbRoCQE

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.

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #484 on: September 28, 2007, 07:45:35 AM »
Heck no, if I had to take a guess I would say somewhere between 3 to 4 times greater, at 250,000 my steel ball bearing would have struck the head sending everything into orbit!  ;D

Do you think it was 250,000 times stronger?

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #485 on: September 28, 2007, 08:03:42 AM »
I am actually still trying to get more information on the Tesla bifilar coil, my own experments have shown some interesting results when parallel fed, also if you tie one output to the input of the other then feed as shown.

input
----cccccc-----|
               |
|--------------|
|
|-----cccccc----   
                  output

You get a much greater BEMF than that from a simular singular would coil with the same number of turns.
eg 50 turns each winding on the bifilar, 100 turns on the singular wound coil, the only way I can think that would happen is if the magnetic field potential is greater in the bifilar.

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #486 on: September 28, 2007, 09:12:31 AM »
For the life of me I do not know why I went along with this resonating of tubes thing, I guess I got caught up in the excitement  ::)

I believe very strongly that Meyers was NOT looking at the physical resonance of the tubes but in fact was looking at the resonance of a series resonant circuit, eg a coils and capacitors in series!, in this case the tubes would be the capacitor in question!, physical resonance when submerged in water would be so dampened down as to be unimportant.

If you can find the value of your inductors and the capacitance of your tubes then you can work out the resonant frequency, to find the resonant frequency is...

F=1/(2Pi(SQRT(LC))

In laymans terms, thats F = 1 divided by (2 x Pi x SQRT(L x C)), calculate the inner parenthasis first L x C, then get the square root of this, then multiply by 6.283(eg 2 x Pi) then do a 1 over, on your calculator it should look like [1/x]

Where F=resonant frequency, L=inductance of coil, C=capacitance of tubes.

A good LC bridge meter should be able to read the capacitance of the tubes while they are submerged in the water.

Once you have that frequency, try tuning the high frequency pulse to it.

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #487 on: September 28, 2007, 10:12:32 AM »
I've had this discussion a number of times, if the wires were bare side by side touching then the magnetic potential would be shorted out, in effect it might as well only be one winding, by keeping the windings seperate they reinforce the magnetic potential in each other.


If they can touch, and they can, they can just as well be a single wire.  If the surface area is the same and the cross section is the same, there would be no difference even counting skin effect. 

Hissyfit

Gustav22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #488 on: September 28, 2007, 12:52:14 PM »
I'm trying to build onto an idea posted by tao et al. regarding the speed of sound in water and related calculations.

If you have a set of tuning forks, consisting of one fork tuned to a tone such as C flat
and several others forks tuned to 1, 2, 3 ... octaves above and/or below, all of them will resonate if only one of them is struck.

Example: If the frequency of the biggest  fork is per chance 2675 Hz
the frequency of the next smaller fork would be 5350 Hz to be one octave higher and
the frequency of the next smaller one would be 10700 Hz and
the frequency of the next smaller one would be 21400 Hz and
the frequency of the next smaller one would be 42800 Hz and
so on.

That's like always doubling the frequency, such as:
1 (basic frequency)
2 (one ocatve up)
4 (next octave)
8 (next octave)
16
32, 64, 128, ...

...... concentric cylinders 4 inches [0.1016 m = 101.6 mm] long formed the water capacitor of the fuel cell in the volume of water. The outside cylinder was 0.75 inch  in outside diameter; the inner cylinder was 0.5 inch [12.7 mm] in outside diameter.

Spacing from the outside of the inner cylinder to the  inner surface of the outside cylinder was 0.0625 inch [0.0015875 m = 1.5875 mm]. Resonance in the circuit was achieved at a 26 volt applied pulse to the primary coil of the toroid at 0 KHz, [ this must be a mistake/omission/alteration !?

Variations of the process and apparatus may be evident to those skilled in the art.

I take it that this is a quote from a SM patent (the watercar SM, not the TPU SM)

Here the "resonance cavity" i.e. gap between the inner and outer tube is given as 1.5875 mm (see quote)
the length of the tubes is given as 101.6 mm (see quote)
Divide the two:
101.6 / 1.5875 = 64
that means that tube length (i.e. height of water column) is seven octaves of the gap and thus auto-resonating to the same basic freq.

And at the same time:
outside diameter of small tube is given as 12.7 mm
the length of the tubes is 101.6 mm
Divide the two:
101.6 / 12.7 = 8
that's 4 octaves and thus auto-resonating to the same basic freq.

saintpoida

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #489 on: September 28, 2007, 04:17:29 PM »
ok guys its late here in oz i think i have the circuit complete

i tested with voltmeter and while i couldnt see pulsing (using digital multimeter)
the voltage would change when i changed frequencies

and then i didnt have any bulbs on hand so i just put a diode accross terminals
and while it didnt pulse so much i could change the colour of it by changing frequencies

so i assume its working? tomorrow i will get a proper bulb and see how it goes

but my altmeter isnt working? Could i have wired it up incorrectly? i followed the diagram
but im thinking the diagram and my altmeter have different positive / negative, i cant
see the needle move at all so im not sure?

anyone have suggestions on that?

thanks
pete

Spewing

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #490 on: September 28, 2007, 09:09:20 PM »
some of you may not like me for this, but i guess i'll see what the outcome of it is going to be.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 05:01:59 AM by Spewing »

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #491 on: September 28, 2007, 09:19:23 PM »
Read it earlier  ;)

"grabs popcorn and waits for fireworks"

some of you may not like me for this, but i guess i'll see what the outcome of it is going to be.

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #492 on: September 28, 2007, 09:35:47 PM »
Well, I've just about reached the limits of testing that I can do, so far no signs of extra HHO for my power input, I've gone over everything, used distilled as well as tap water, ramped up and down the frequencies but so far I'm getting no better than a 20 maybe 25% efficiency, so I'm still waiting, has anyone out there managed to match Ravi yet, any takers with several hundred percent efficiency!?!?

saintpoida

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #493 on: September 28, 2007, 10:58:23 PM »
lol altmeter i meant ammeter

ok guys its late here in oz i think i have the circuit complete

i tested with voltmeter and while i couldnt see pulsing (using digital multimeter)
the voltage would change when i changed frequencies

and then i didnt have any bulbs on hand so i just put a diode accross terminals
and while it didnt pulse so much i could change the colour of it by changing frequencies

so i assume its working? tomorrow i will get a proper bulb and see how it goes

but my altmeter isnt working? Could i have wired it up incorrectly? i followed the diagram
but im thinking the diagram and my altmeter have different positive / negative, i cant
see the needle move at all so im not sure?

anyone have suggestions on that?

thanks
pete

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #494 on: September 29, 2007, 03:16:15 AM »


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.

Quote from: HissyfitNihilism
Here is something for you to ponder:  You say that when you put two bifilar-wound coils in parallel you get "some interesting results".  The truth of the matter is that you get exactly the same results (inductance, energy storage, Q) as you would get using a single coil made with larger wire, except for skin effect.  Think about it...there is no voltage difference between the two wires at any point so they could just as well be bare wires touching each other inside a thin tube that insulates the pair from the next turn.  If they can touch, and they can, they can just as well be a single wire.  If the surface area is the same and the cross section is the same, there would be no difference even counting skin effect. 

Bifilar coils placed in parallel offer no advantage or difference compared to a single wire coil except possibly skin effect based Q improvement if the pair of wires offers more surface area than the equivalent larger single wire.  The extreme proof of this is Litz wire, where many many strands are wound "filar". The only reason Litz wire is used is to increase the Q and AC high frequency current handling by reducing the skin effect. 

An inductor wound with Litz wire has the same inductance and energy storage as an inductor wound with the same turns and size and core but with a single fat conductor. 

Regarding placing the bifilar coils in series, as Tesla's patent suggests, I very seriously doubt that you obtain any greater BEMF compared to a single-wound coil of rwice the turns, same geometry.  Teslas actual legal patent claims tell the tale.  He did it to lower the self-resonant frequency and eliminate discrete capacitors.  That is all there is to it.  The rest is popular ou mytholgy.  I suggest you measure again, this time properly, and see for yourself.  If anything, the increased interwinding effective capacitance will reduce the peak unloaded BEMF voltage because it will provide a larger transient current path as the mag field collapses.

There are so many delusions based on back emf and lead acid batteries...you know better RB...I've read you over on Steorn.  This whole bifilar myth is another bit of ou magic silliness fog factor.

@HissyfitNihilism

I strongly suggest that you buy a magnetometer and test bifilars on iron core by yourself.

Bifilars, depending on how connected, can increase or decrease the magnetic field generation.
This have nothing to do with energie storage.


B.T.W.  Litz wires do not behave like bifilars, not because of skin effect, but because, at some points, one wire is on top of the other wire.
That kinda intercept the magnetic field at those precise points, don't you agree ?