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
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 88   Go Down

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power  (Read 828322 times)

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #495 on: September 29, 2007, 04:51:16 AM »
Quote from: HissyfitNihilism on September 29, 2007, 03:32:58 AM
No.  I don't agree.  Your understanding of magnetics obviously lacks any realism and came from a comic book.  The strength of the field has everything to do with energy storage...where did you think the energy was stored? 
????

what is the reality then ?

Displacement of energy in a wire create magnetic field and vice versa.
I never saw any capacitors exibiting a magnetic field, perhap you can show me one...

Did you ever tested bifilars ?
What was the outcome, at the ends of the core rode, compaire to a single wire coil ?

I still suggest you buy a magnetometer and test bifilars by yourself.
Has for myself, i will still use bifilars, in it multiple types, where i see them fit based on my own experiments.
Logged

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #496 on: September 29, 2007, 06:49:21 AM »
Quote from: HissyfitNihilism on September 29, 2007, 05:32:46 AM
It is very hard to tell what you are trying to say, but I think you are telling me that inductors do not store energy in their magnetic fields; only capacitors store energy...is that what you are saying?

I have done many experiments.  They have shown me that bifilar windings offer no advantage except to increase the normally-unwanted self-capacitance as Tesla's patent claims clearly state.

Your theories about "energy displacement" in wires are nonsensical.  Have you been studying at Panacea University?
It is not the inductance that store energy, it is the capacitance, and in inductors capacitance is a really low one.
But sure, that "parasitic" capacitance, must be taken into account when developing an electric circuit where capacitance matter.
Resistance can be an unwanted thing in an inductor too.

I don't really care about if electrons are moving in a wire or if they are put in a higher state of energie.
Suffice to say that something is happening in those wires.
And no matter the way you think it work, you get the same effects.

The biggest difference in bifilars compair to single wire coil, lenght for lenght/size for size, is not in capacitance.
It is the inductance difference.

Magnetic field lag behind current, or is it behind potential...  ::)
What bifilars do is put them in sync or in opposition depending of how you make the connection.

Bifilar are commonly use to reduce or nullify self-inductance or nullify the magnetic field collapse.
But bifilar can also do the opposite.
It only depends on how they are connected in your circuit.


@all
Tuning your bifilar coil(s) could be to water resonance, earth mag field, tubes, etc...
But, what if everythings are tune the proper frequency or one of the harmonic of the base beat...
Logged

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #497 on: September 29, 2007, 09:26:34 AM »
Quote from: TheNOP on September 29, 2007, 06:49:21 AM
It is not the inductance that store energy, it is the capacitance, and in inductors capacitance is a really low one.



Errr, energy is stored in an inductor, thats what the magnetic field is, when the field collapses the stored energy is released in the form of BEMF.

I understand your thinking, that only a capacitor or similar stores energy and it does seem strange that a wire coil can store energy, but there you have it, a wire coil stores energy in the form of a magnetic field.
Logged

Duranza

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #498 on: September 29, 2007, 04:43:57 PM »
This is for "Hiss...whatever the puck" why don't you go the the right section of this forum and leave this thread alone. There is a whole section for people like you. It is the skeptics thread. This here section is dedicated to people that are set to build what you deny. So please don't come here to interrupt our progress. If you don't believe it can work than what the hell are you doing reading this forum?
Logged

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #499 on: September 29, 2007, 08:18:46 PM »
Quote from: RunningBare on September 29, 2007, 09:26:34 AM
Quote from: TheNOP on September 29, 2007, 06:49:21 AM
It is not the inductance that store energy, it is the capacitance, and in inductors capacitance is a really low one.



Errr, energy is stored in an inductor, thats what the magnetic field is, when the field collapses the stored energy is released in the form of BEMF.

I understand your thinking, that only a capacitor or similar stores energy and it does seem strange that a wire coil can store energy, but there you have it, a wire coil stores energy in the form of a magnetic field.
You might be right, stored energy in the form of a magnetic field in coils, but i don't view it like that.

"Electricity" and magnetisim are the same things but in different forms.
Both travel differently in a wire, and giving the proper physical placement of that wire, compaire to itself, you can favor the magnetisim way.

The way i see it is that inductors favor magnetisim as a way to travel the energy trough the wire.
The apply energy always stay the same but split in different forms.

Putting tiny magnets next to each other will get you a bigger overall magnetic field.
That is what self inductance do.

The collapse of a magnetic field have specific effects.
The stronger the field, the stronger the effects.
Use were those effets best apply...


Quote from: HissyfitNihilism on September 29, 2007, 07:22:04 AM
"Suffice to say that something is happening in those wires"

I think this single statement sums up your true knowledge of electronics fundamentals. 

Everything else you say is either absolutely incorrect or completely misstated. 

Good luck...you are in the right place to have your misinformation strongly reinforced.  There is a vast majority here who know as little or less than you do and who profess to know much more.
Then, enlight me.
Logged

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #500 on: September 29, 2007, 09:35:55 PM »
Here a better explanation of what i mean when i say "Use were those effets best apply".

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3247.0.html

Even if that tread was to clarify the terms "Back EMF" and "Collapsing magnetic field".
It give a good understanding of when, and how, coils should be use.

Logged

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #501 on: September 30, 2007, 03:52:41 AM »
Quote from: HissyfitNihilism on September 30, 2007, 01:08:05 AM
I added my two cents here to dispute a false claim that a bifilar wound inductor stores 250,000 times the energy of a single-filar wound inductor of the same turns.  Now we have idiots arguing that inductors store no energy at all; only capacitors do!

The level of stupidity and groping in the dark through endless falsehoods and misinformation spewed here will no doubt prevent anyone from ever duplicating Meyers work, even if it is repeatable.  So many "experts" asserting so much bullshit...it's comical.  Progress?  LOL
The "idiot" is still waiting for a lesson.
And don't say you have no time to loose with idiots, you are already loosing plenty of time trying to insult me.


b.t.w RunningBare
You are right.
Inductors store energy in the form of magnetic field.
Only true idiots are not able to study more and change their mind.  :D

But i am still convince that serie bifilar coil does concentrate more of the energy in form of magnetic field then single one.
Is it 250 K times ?
I don't know, i never tryed to calculate it.
But it is more for sure.


Here a simple experiment:

Take one 100 cm wire #32
Turn it over an soft iron core.
Apply 1.5 Volt
See how much weight you can lift.

Take two 50 cm wire #32
Turn then over the same core in the bifilar way, hook them in serie.
Apply 1.5 Volt
See how much weight you can lift.

Now.
Tell me why i can lift more weight with my serie bifilars coils.
Logged

Spewing

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #502 on: September 30, 2007, 04:21:35 AM »
i have updated the pdf.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 05:03:42 AM by Spewing »
Logged

ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #503 on: September 30, 2007, 04:57:21 AM »
Quote from: leeroyjenkinsii 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

He goes back and EDITS his posts , he is mentally ill i am still waiting for Stefan to remove him or who ever moderates here. This is the banned Humbugger BTW, he follows me around the intter net like a stalking female, (he has been banned other places BTW) plus post skepticism as i beleive (those who know me trust me) he is working for Big oil.
Read between his lines, he is not very mentally stable, and allot of people think his posts are usefull, but dont realize.
Logged

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #504 on: September 30, 2007, 06:15:26 AM »
Quote from: HissyfitNihilism on September 30, 2007, 04:00:40 AM
Because you are hallucinating?  I tried the experiment and there is no difference.
Then i will have to find a better way to quantify the result of that little experiment.
Aside from counting the number of paper clips picked up.
Any suggestion on how i should proceed to properly quantify the weight ?



So...
You are saying that Tesla was wrong in patent 512340, section 95 to section 5, and, after about 120 years later, people are still misinformed about serie bifilar ?
Seem weird to me, but could be true.
Logged

Super God

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #505 on: September 30, 2007, 06:16:33 AM »
Sorry to change the subject from all the bickering, but...How can we scale this Meyer setup to gas production rates to run a vehicle?  Ideally we wouldn't want to take up alot of space, so should we have more than one pulse generator connected to sections of tubes, or should we just setup more than one cell entirely?  I can't wait to get started on my own cell.
Logged

tao

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 378
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #506 on: September 30, 2007, 06:50:15 AM »
...
Logged

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #507 on: September 30, 2007, 07:20:30 AM »
Quote from: HissyfitNihilism on September 30, 2007, 06:24:09 AM
Read the patent and especially the claims.  Tesla never discusses any DC electromagnets.  The claims specifically talk about lowering the self inductance by raising the effective interwinding capacitance.  These are AC phenomena only and have nothing to do with DC battery-operated electromagnets. 

Count your paper clips.  You are hallucinating.
I know what the claim is.
Mind you, the patent does not state AC, but frequencies.
That can also be pulsed DC.

I see your point about DC battery-operated electromagnets tho.

Logged

peter from oz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #508 on: September 30, 2007, 12:20:40 PM »
"grabs popcorn and waits for fireworks"
"l have updated the pdf"

Ok, l'm confussed to put it mildly. As a potential user of this technology l thought l was replicating something that worked, all it needed was "tuning" and we were all working on the same page so to speak. Now two postings from spewing have to date gone totally unnoticed or commented on. l'm starting to believe peoples motives in this is the process not the effing end result. So Stan told porkies, well he was human after all not an effing God, lets get over it. Were do we go from here ? ls it all BS or can l still produce hohoho and run my truck for all the righteous reasons? (shuv it up big business, shuv it up the government, and greed )

 What are you saying Spewing? it does work but l need slots in the pipes to let the gas out, need sh1t loads of amps now instead of volts, or both. Ravi and Dave were having a lend of themselves with the big bubbles, (well l spose they did disappear, why?) conditioning is crap? l'm no inventor but l can and want to produce sh1t loads of hohoho that l think l can put to good use, not stuff around trying to make the unworkable work, l'm to bloody old for that.

Runningbar, l presume from your posting that you cant get it to produce as good as Ravi and Dave and from reading you have put a lot into it, sooo what now? more amps, slots? or retire to the lounge chair and watch the sideshow cos it dont work?

Hissyfit, for Cs sake post something that helps instead of snipeing ya prick. l dont pretend to know enough to comment on the tec talk going on here, but it sounds like you might know something that could contribute and possibly get something producing enough gas to do more than fart, or is snipeing your way of getting your jollys, end of story.

Well l spose l've offended everyone now, l'm not sorry if we can move on and answer the ? of if it can produce more than standard electrolosis or whatever you call it, or l'll just go over to the Griffin thread and do it that way, at least l dont need the friggin technology degree to understand it

Regards
Peter (no, l'm not bitter and twisted, just pissed at the possibility of been conned)
Logged

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #509 on: September 30, 2007, 12:29:50 PM »
Hi Peter,

First of all  i must say I totally agree with you. I think this whole thread has gone a bit haywire...
I've read spewings document and as far as i can see i totally contradicts the operating principles explained by Stan Meyer.
I think a lot of people put forward their own (unverified) theories at the wrong place.

I am still gonna continue with replicating the demo electrolyser. I have the pulser ready. Just waiting for my acrylic tube to start building the cell. My SS tubes are cut to size and ready to go in. I'm gonna have 6 tubes of 20 centimeters.

regards

Robert
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 88   Go Up
« previous next »